Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 625
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma
Guddu Kumar Singh @ Guddu Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CR. MISC./61805/2022
An accused is not entitled to bail if the trial is going on and only a few prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Headnote:
BAIL - SECTION 302/120B IPC - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF CO-ACCUSED - NOT NAMED IN FIR - BAIL REJECTED
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and later on charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 302/ 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the husband of the informant had gone to meet a person at his house but did not return till evening. In the morning, the informant received a message on her mobile from the mobile of her husband demanding rupees twenty lakhs from the informant in which it was also threatened that if the money is not given, her husband would be killed. The informant asked Ankaj upon which he replied that he, along with the husband of the informant had gone to Masadh from where they were returning but in the way one person was met and the husband of the informant went with the said person and he returned to Ara by a tempo. However, during investigation, it transpired that the husband of the informant has been murdered.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and that his name was transpired on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused, namely, Ankaj Kumar. The court also noted that the trial was going on and that only two out of five prosecution witnesses had been examined.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case where he was not named in the FIR and his name was transpired on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail as the trial was going on and only two out of five prosecution witnesses had been examined.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for bail.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61805 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2021 Thana- UDWANTNAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Guddu Kumar Singh @ Guddu Singh Son of Balwant Singh Resident of
Village- Mathurapur, Police Station-Koilwar, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shantanu Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3
11-01-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to
remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within
a period of four weeks from today.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code
and later on charge sheet has been submitted under Sections
302/ 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
Earlier the bail of the petitioner was rejected vide
order dated 10.03.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 37920 of 2021.
According to prosecution case, as per the F.I.R. the
informant lives at Sankar Mochan Nagar, Ara with her husband
and children. On 24.02.2021, the husband of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61805 of 2022(3) dt.11-01-2023
2/3
namely Umesh Kumar Singh, on call by Ankaj Kumar had gone
to meet him at his house at Jagdeo Nagar but did not return till
evening. In the morning, the informant received a message on
her mobile from the mobile of her husband demanding rupees
twenty lakhs from the informant in which it was also threatened
that if the money is not given, her husband would be killed. The
informant asked Ankaj upon which he replied that he, along
with the husband of the informant had gone to Masadh from
where they were returning but in the way one person was met
and the husband of the informant went with the said person and
he returned to Ara by a tempo. However, during investigation, it
transpired that the husband of the informant has been murdered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that in fact,
the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the
petitioner has been transpired on the basis of the confessional
statement of the co-accused, namely, Ankaj Kumar.
Vide order dated 30.11.2022 the report was called with
regard to the stage of trial. Report dated 22.12.2022 reveals that
out of five prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been
examined.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61805 of 2022(3) dt.11-01-2023
3/3
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid facts and in view of the
report that the trial is going on, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in connection with S. Tr. No. 108 of 2022
arising out of Udawantnagar (Gajrajganj O.P.) P.S. Case No. 95
of 2021 pending in the court of learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge XVII, Bhojpur at Ara.
Prayer is refused.
However, the learned Trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial.
Vanisha/-
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U
T
