Petitioner alleged of murder of the informant’s husband denied bail on establishing the grounds that where the deceased suffered several injuries, the petitioner didn’t suffer such injuries. Also, the petitioner didn’t try to find and get the deceased treated and ran away from the place of the accident. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Guddu Bhagat and Ors. v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No.37199 Of 2020].
The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with the Case, instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner along with the co-accused had come to the informant’s house and took her husband for purchase but he didn’t return. The next day he was found dead of an accident. It is further alleged that six months ago there was a dispute with the husband and the accused persons and, thus, suspicion has been raised about the involvement of the accused, including the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is falsified for the reason that if six months before the accident there was a dispute between the accused and the husband of the informant, there could not have been any occasion for the petitioner to have come to the house of the informant/deceased and for him to have accompanied the accused.
The witnesses confirmed the accident. There were several injuries mentioned on the report but the petitioner’s report mentioned nothing as such. But it was correct that they met with an accident where the motorbike had fallen 20 feet below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because the petitioner had got treatment from a village quack, no records were available, he has not filed any supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the informant submitted that it was a pre-planned murder and the petitioner has cleverly given it the color of an accident, which is false. It was submitted that there are multiple injuries on the body of the deceased and the motorcycle does not bear the sign of an accident. It was submitted that the petitioner is said to have regained consciousness and had gone to get treatment, but he did not bother to look for the deceased or arrange for his treatment though he was the one, who had called him and was driving the motorcycle.
The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned APP and learned counsel for the informant. On an overall circumspection of the attending circumstances, the Court finds that the petitioner has not been able to show his bona fide and there is no explanation as to why there was no injury suffered by him, whereas, the deceased has suffered multiple internal injuries on many vital organs and further, that though he was the person, who had called the deceased from the house but he did not take any steps for treatment of the deceased if the story of accident is correct, and soon thereafter the victim had died.” The Court hence denied the pre-arrest bail application.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
