[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Sujit Kumar Singh @ Sujit Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 11 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81436 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-598 Year-2023 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Sujit Kumar Singh @ Sujit Singh S/o- Late Prabhu Dayal Singh Village-
Adauri Ps- Purnahiya, Dist- Sheohar
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, APP
For the Informant : Mrs. Malika Mazumdar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 598 of 2023 dated 05.12.2023 for
the alleged offence under sections 341, 323, 447, 302, 504 and
506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in a case which was
initiated on the basis of a fardbayan of one Khusbhu Devi
wherein she alleged that on 02.12.2023 at around 06:00 P.M. her
agnates namely Ravi Chaudhary entered her house and started
assaulting her and her son Himanshu Chaudhary. It was further
alleged in the fardbayan that the informant and her son anyhow
managed to hide and save themselves. Subsequently, the
informant states that she had informed about the incident to her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81436 of 2024(3) dt.11-04-2025
2/5
husband who was working at Muzaffarpur and, while he was on
his way to his village, she received a called from her husband
who had called on her mobile phone and informed that he is in a
half dead state and Ravi Choudhary along with the petitioner
and one another namely Raju Singh have left him injured and he
is lying there on NH 77. In the fardbayan, it was further
submitted that she went to the place of occurrence, however, she
was informed that the police has taken her husband to Nandi Pat
Memorial Hospital for treatment, however, before he could
reach he could reach the hospital he was dead.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of
an old dispute between the family of the informant and Ravi
Chaudhary. The petitioner is brother-in-law of the said Ravi
Chaudhary and is resident of Sheohar district. The informant is
not an eye-witness to the incident and even taking into
consideration the statement made that the deceased was on his
way to his village and was brutally assaulted mid-way, it was
doubtful as to how, he had called the informant and has
informed about the names of the persons who had assaulted
him. The learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this
Court to the subsequent statements made by the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81436 of 2024(3) dt.11-04-2025
3/5
during the course of investigation where she has now stated that
a total number of nine persons had assaulted her husband as
informed by her husband on telephone. The learned counsel has
also pointed out that the inquest report does not contain the fact
that any phone was recovered or was found with the deceased.
During investigation there is nothing on record to suggest the
presence of the petitioner at the place of occurance.
5. The learned counsel has further submitted that the
police personnel, who had taken the husband of the informant
from the place of occurrence to the hospital or any local villager
has not been examined during the course of investigation to
support the contention of the informant. The learned counsel for
the petitioner lastly submits that the injury received does not
confirm that the same had been inflicted by accused persons as
there is no ocular evidence to support such fact and the
petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2024.
6. The learned counsel for the informant has opposed
the prayer for bail contending mainly on the fact that the
petitioners and the informants are the agnates and one of the
agnate Ravi Chaudhary had entered her house and had assaulted
her and her son and had threatened him and has also tried to
press her neck. The learned counsel had further stated that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81436 of 2024(3) dt.11-04-2025
4/5
deceased was done to death by the petitioner and others in a
very pre planned manner and they had planned an ambush for
him and he was done to death by inflicting the injuries which
was found in the ante mortem injury report contained in the post
mortem report.
7. The learned APP for the State has supported the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the informant
and has added that the petitioner and others being the agnates
and the petitioner, being named in the FIR by the informant and
subsequently, in her re-statement also, does not deserve the
liberty of bail.
8. Considering the fact that there is no eye-witness to
such incident and taking into account the fact that the husband
of the informant was done to death while he was on way to his
village home and taking into account the inquest report which
prima facie does not confirm the statement made by the
informant that she had received a call from her husband while
he was on his way after he was assaulted by the accused
persons, the said mobile phone was never recovered by the
police. The Court also takes into account the CDR report which
says that there were three calls made from the phone of the
husband of the informant on her phone and all those phones
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81436 of 2024(3) dt.11-04-2025
5/5
were made at around 10 P.M. and two calls subsequently, which
does not corroborate the allegations made in the fardbayan. In
view of the aforesaid facts let the petitioner be enlarged on bail
on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection
with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 598 of 2023, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of
BNSS as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and
every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned
Trial Court.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Siddharth Soni/-
U T
[ad_2]
Source link