Patna High Court
Bachchan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.14 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2021 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Bachchan Kumar Son of Nakhe Sahni Resident of Village - Lallu Pokhar
Ward No.31, P.s.- Kasim Bazar, Distt.- Munger.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ghuran Paswan Son of Singheshwar Paswan Resident of Village -
Ballochak, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, Distt.- Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-12-2022
Earlier notice was issued to respondent no.2 through
both modes but no service report is on record. Thereafter, notice
was ordered to be issued through Superintendent of Police for
intimation to the informant regarding the proceeding taking
place in this Court. This order was passed on 03.11.2022
thereafter on the next date and today also none is present on
behalf of the respondent no.2. Hence, the matter has been put
up for hearing.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
counsel for the State.
Let the defect (s), if any, as pointed out by the office,
be removed within a period of four weeks.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.14 of 2022 dt.08-12-2022
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 30.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST
(POA) Act, Samastipur in connection with Dalsinghsarai P.S.
Case No. 108 of 2021 registered for the alleged offences under
Sections 365, 363, 364, 302, 120, 379 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3 (1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
As per the prosecution case, the son of the informant
was running an e-rickshaw which was booked by co-accused
Sunil Sahni. Thereafter, the son of the informant went missing
with his e-rickshaw. Later on, his dead body was recovered.
During investigation, the name of the petitioner surfaced as one
of the accused persons having complicity in the abduction and
murder of the son of the informant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant
has been made accused in this case on the basis of recovery of
the mobile phone said to be belonging to the deceased. But the
father of the deceased claim that the mobile phone of his son
was of Vivo company whereas the recovered mobile of this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.14 of 2022 dt.08-12-2022
appellant is of Oppo company. Moreover, it has come during
investigation that the said mobile phone was used by two other
persons namely Ajay Chaudhary and Anil Sharma but they were
not made accused in this case. The co-accused Sunil Sahni was
granted bail vide order dated 29.09.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal
(SJ) No. 878 of 2022. The appellant is in custody since
25.09.2021 and charge-sheet has been submitted.
Learned Spl.PP opposes the prayer for bail.
Perused the records.
From perusal of the case diary and seizure memo,
paragraph-31 of the supplementary case diary shows the IMEI
number of the mobile phone belonging to the appellant was
recovered from this appellant who failed to produce any
documents for the same. On this point, it appears from
paragraph-30 of the supplementary case diary that the appellant
claimed that the said mobile phone was given to him by his
brother-in-law Ajay Chaudhary for selling it. Hence, the case of
the appellant is not at similar footing with the other co-accused
who has been granted bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
considering the fact that the recovered mobile phone having the
same IMEI number as that of the mobile phone of the deceased
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.14 of 2022 dt.08-12-2022
was recovered from this appellant, I am not inclined to enlarge
this appellant on bail.
Hence, his prayer for bail is rejected.
However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite
the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of
nine months.
If the trial is not concluded within a period of nine
months, then the appellant may renew his prayer for bail.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Rajnish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.12.2022
Transmission Date 14.12.2022
