The man denied bail on not being able to show bonafide and injuries even after a huge accident: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.371920 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 177 Year 2020 Thana AMARPUR District Banka Guddu Bhagat @ Guddu Yadav @ Raj Kumar aged 24 years Male son of Pradeep Bhagat @ Pradeep Kumar resident of village Karsani P.S. Rajoun District Banka ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State For the Informant Mr. Ajay Mukherjee Advocate Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay APP Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State and Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad learned counsel for the informant 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Amarpur PS Case No. 1720 dated 09.04.2020 instituted under Sections 302 34 of the Indian Penal Code 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co accused Tulso Yadav had come to the house of the informant and taken her husband for purchase of fish on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.371920 dt.19 08 2021 01.04.2020 but he did not return to the house till the evening and on search he was not found and next day from the newspaper she came to know that her husband had died due to accident. It is further alleged that six months ago there was dispute with the husband and the accused persons and thus suspicion has been raised with regard to the involvement of the accused including the petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is falsified for the reason that if six months prior to the accident there was 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 to buy fish. It was submitted that during investigation witnesses have stated that it was an accident and the petitioner had no role in it 6. On 12.07.2021 the Court had called for the up to date legible photostat copy of the entire case diary along with inquest and postmortem reports. Learned APP has received the 7. On 12.08.2021 in view of submission of learned APP that the inquest and postmortem reports disclose multiple Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.371920 dt.19 08 2021 injuries both external and internal on the deceased but there is no mentioning or report available with regard to injuries suffered by the petitioner if at all it is correct that he along with the deceased had met with an accident where the motorcycle is said to have fallen 20 feet below learned counsel for the petitioner had taken time to bring on record the details of the treatment received by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because the petitioner had got treatment from a village quack no records being available he has not filed any supplementary affidavit. 8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that it was a pre planned murder and the petitioner has cleverly given it the colour 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 sign of any accident the story cannot be believed more so as it was the petitioner who had called the deceased from the house and thereafter he had died. It was submitted that there is not even a scratch on the body of the petitioner and most surprisingly the body of the deceased bears signs of brutal murder as many internal organs have been crushed. Further he contended that it is not possible that one person would receive so much injures and the other person Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.371920 dt.19 08 2021 would not have even a scratch on his body. Moreover 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 on which the deceased was sitting behind as has been contended on his behalf which clearly falsifies the defence 9. 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 over all 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. 10. For reasons aforesaid the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.371920 dt.19 08 2021 11. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed 12. Interim protection granted to the petitioner under order dated 12.07.2021 stands vacated. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary: 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.