Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar Ray vs The State Of Bihar on 1 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66729 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-501 Year-2019 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran
======================================================
MUKESH KUMAR RAY S/o Tribhuvan Ray, R/o Village- Bangra
Dumarasan, P.S.- Mashrakh, Distt- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bijay Prakash Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satya Nand Shukla
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-05-2023
I have already heard Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Satya Nand
Shukla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection
with Mashrak P.S. Case No. 501 of 2019, registered for offence
punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant of this case is Surendra Rai. He has
mentioned in his written report, addressing to S.H.O., Mashrak,
Chapra (Saran), that his son Rajeev Kumar, aged about 17 years,
went out from the house at about 10:00 A.M. on 08.11.2019, but
he did not return. At 8:00 P.M., Rajeev Kumar informed his
father that he was in Chapra. Thereafter, his mobile set became
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66729 of 2022 dt.01-05-2023
switched off. Despite hectic search, he could not be traced out.
On 15.11.2019 at about 6:30 P.M., the informant tried to ring
him again on his mobile no. 7352516807, but it was switched
off. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
found that the headless body of the deceased was found in
District-Bhojpur in Barhara Police Station and it was identified
that it was the dead body of son of the informant.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. No incriminating material was recovered from his
possession and his name has figured only on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused Rahul Kumar. He has also
submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of twelve
days.
On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the
prayer for bail and has submitted that when the Investigating
Authorities collected the call detail records (CDRs) and IMEI
number of the mobile phone of the deceased, it was detected
that the mobile phone belonging to the deceased was in
possession with one Saket Kumar. Paragraph 40 of the case
diary reveals that when Saket Kumar was apprehended, he
disclosed that he was running a mobile repair shop and one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66729 of 2022 dt.01-05-2023
Dhiraj Kumar had given him two mobile sets for repairing. One
of those two mobile sets, Dhiraj Kumar left one mobile set in
lieu of remuneration of repairing, which was with Saket Kumar.
It was found that it was the mobile set of the deceased. During
investigation, it was also found that before his death, the
deceased had a call on the mobile phone of co-accused Rahul
Kumar on his mobile no. 7970687346. Thereafter, Rahul Kumar
was apprehended and furnished the detailed description of entire
occurrence in his self inculpatory confessional statement
recorded in paragraph no. 94 of the case diary. He has stated that
he developed friendship with the deceased. They were involved
in committing theft. The deceased had developed intimacy with
second wife of co-accused Binod Ram due to which co-accused
Rahul Kumar, Binod Ram and the petitioner hatched a
conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. As per pre-planning, all
of them consumed liquor. The deceased also consumed liquor in
excessive quantity. When due to excessive consumption the
deceased was in semi-conscious state, the petitioner caught hold
of his hand and co-accused Binod Ram with a knife severed the
head of the deceased from his body. Having left torso, they took
the head in a bag (Jhola) and after some distance, the head was
concealed in a pit.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66729 of 2022 dt.01-05-2023
On the basis of CDR, the culprits were apprehended.
One of them (Rahul Kumar) has narrated the entire occurrence
and has furnished the vivid description of the entire occurrence.
In my view, it is not a proper case for grant of bail. It
is accordingly rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
Mahesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 19.04.2023
Uploading Date 01.05.2023
Transmission Date 01.05.2023
