This is in connection with Chautarwa PS Case No. 420 of 2020 dated 02.10.2020, petitioner No.1 and No.2 were taken into custody under Section 302 IPC, “Punishment for murder”, section 201 “Causing disappearance of evidence of the offense, or giving false information to screen offender”, section 34IPC “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This judgment was given in the high court of judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 29th of July 2021 in the case of Ripusudan Dubey versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 7800 of 2021, Mr. Mishra represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Arif represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held through video conference.
The following are the facts of the case, petitioners no.1 and 2 were accused of killing the informant’s brother. According to the counsel for the petitioners, he held that according to the FIR the informant appeared to be the witness to the crime and accordingly named petitioners 1 and 2 but it was transpired that he was not clearly an eye witness as him along with his family members tried to locate the deceased since he did not return home. The next morning, the dead body was recovered, proving that the informant was not the eyewitness to the crime. The counsel further stated that there has been a long history of enmity and litigation between the parties and they have been filing several cases against each other.
The counsel stated that the deceased was a criminal and was accused in various murder cases and was residing in a village of his sister-in-law, the other brothers were also killed because of their criminal history either in a police encounter or by others, and the deceased was accused under section 302 of the Indian penal code and the trial was yet to be held. Therefore there is no evidence to accuse the petitioners of this crime. Petitioner no.1 is the Panch of Gram Kuchery of Salha Bariarwa and had conducted several Panchayati against the informant and the informant’s brother-in-law. the counsel further held that petitioner no.1 accused the informant and his brother-in-law of snatching Rs. 50,000 at gunpoint and assaulting him. Therefore mere suspicion cannot be held as grounds for arrest. The Additional Public Prosecutor held that the brother of the deceased named the petitioners however there is no solid evidence and It is not controverted in the FIR itself.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court held that the petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties to the ACJM, under the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 “(i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners no. 1 and 2, (ii) that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 and the bailors shall execute the bond and give undertaking concerning good behaviour of the petitioners no. 1 and 2 and (iii) that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 shall co-operate with the police/prosecution and the Court.”
The court concluded that “Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners no. 1 and 2, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners no. 1 and 2.”
