Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4260 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.117 of 2022
           Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2020 Thana- PUPRI District- Sitamarhi
     ======================================================

Manoj Kumar, Son of Ram Bilash Sah @ Ram Vilash Sah, Resident of Village- Sanhpur, P.S.- Sinhwara, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Mahendra Baitha, Son of Late Jaleshwar Baitha, Resident of Village-

Ibrahimpur, Ward No.-7, P.S.- Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP For the Respondent no.2 : Uday Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-08-2022

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned

Spl.PP for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be

removed within a period of four weeks from the date of

resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.

This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for bail by

order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned 1 st Additional

Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,

Sitamarhi in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 319 of 2020,

registered for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.117 of 2022 dt.04-08-2022

302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) (r), (s),

(w),(1)/3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the

informant was the second wife of the co-accused Pramod

Kumar Sah and allegedly the co-accused persons along with this

petitioner committed the murder of the daughter of the

informant.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is the nephew of co-accused husband of the deceased

and for this reason, he has been falsely implicated in this case.

There is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and no one

has seen this appellant getting involved in the alleged crime.

Even during investigation, the landlord of the house, where the

deceased used to live, has stated about 3-4 persons fleeing away

from the place, but he did not name this appellant. Other witness

has also not named the appellant during investigation. Except

for suspicion and the name of the appellant coming up in the

FIR, nothing of substance came up during investigation.

Learned counsel further submits that the similarly placed co-

accused persons have been granted bail by different Co-ordinate

Benches of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2021 passed in Cr. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.117 of 2022 dt.04-08-2022

APP(SJ) No. 1912 of 2021 and order dated 03.08.2021 passed

in Cr. APP(SJ) No. 2803 of 2021, respectively. Charge-sheet has

been submitted in this case and the appellant is in custody since

18.08.2021.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent no.2 as well as the learned Spl.PP opposes the prayer

for bail submitting that the deceased was brutally killed and the

appellant has been named as one of the co-accused persons who

was involved in this crime. However, learned counsel concedes

that there is no material on record to show the involvement of

this appellant with the alleged occurrence.

Perused the records.

Having regard to the submissions made hereinabove

and considering the fact that nothing cogent has come against

this appellant during investigation and no recovery has been

made at the instance of this appellant and false implication can

not be denied and further considering the submission of charge-

sheet as well as the period of his custody, the appellant above

named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond

of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional

Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.117 of 2022 dt.04-08-2022

Sitamarhi in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 319 of 2020,

subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions :

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of

the appellant, preferably one of the parents.

(ii) The appellant will remain present on each

and every date fixed by the court below.

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive

dates or in violation of the terms of the bail,

the bail bond of the appellant will be liable to

be cancelled by the court concerned.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the

appeal is allowed.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

balmukund/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          05.08.2022
Transmission Date       05.08.2022