Patna High Court
Rahul Mandal @ Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 27 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No 3194 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2021 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura
======================================================
RAHUL MANDAL @ RAHUL KUMAR Son of Bhagirath Mandal @
Bhgarath Singh Resident of Village - Ganeshpur, Ward no.14, P.S.- Puraini,
Distt.- Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
For the Appellant/s : Mr Anant Kumar 1, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms Usha Kumari 1, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-09-2021
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
learned Special Public Prosecutor (for brevity, Special PP)
appearing for the State of Bihar.
2 The appellant has preferred the present Appeal under
Section 14A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) (for brevity, SC/ST Act), 2016 against
the refusal of his prayer for regular bail vide order dated
03.07.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I -cum- Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Madhepura in a case registered under Sections
302, 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of Arms Act and
Sections 3 (2) (v) (va) of SC/ST Act in connection with Puraini
Police Station (for brevity, PS) Case No 22 of 2021 arising out of
SC/ST Case No 44 of 2021.
3 The informant has lodged a case alleging that his son
was called by the instant appellant and one Deepak Yadav. Further
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3194 of 2021 dt.27-09-2021
allegation is that few hours later, they have intimated regarding
killing of the informant's son by three named and some unknown
persons.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from
the allegation, it is apparent that the informant's son was not
forcibly taken away. Bona fides of the instant appellant is further
evident from the fact that it is the appellant and co-accused
Deepak Yadav who have given intimation regarding the
informant's son being shot dead. The appellant has also disclosed
the names of the assailants and has later been arrested from his
house. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal
antecedent and is in custody since 08.02.2021.
5 Learned Special PP has opposed the prayer for bail.
She has submitted that the appellant has a vital link.
6 In my opinion, in view of nature of accusation in the
First Information Report, and submission of parties, a case for
grant of regular bail is made out. The impugned order dated
03.07.2021 requires interference by this Court, which is,
accordingly, set aside.
7 This appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
03.07.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I -cum- Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Madhepura in connection with Puraini PS Case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3194 of 2021 dt.27-09-2021
No 22 of 2021 arising out of SC/ST Case No 44 of 2021 is set
aside.
8 Let the appellant above named be released on bail on
his furnishing bonds of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Additional Sessions Judge I -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Madhepura in Puraini PS Case No 22 of 2021 arising out of SC/ST
Case No 44 of 2021 subject to the following conditions:
(1) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the
appellant who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he
is related with the appellant. The bailor will also undertake to
inform the Court if there is any change in the address of the
appellant.
(2) That the appellant will be well represented on each
date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will
be liable to be cancelled.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.09.2021
Transmission Date 27.09.2021
