Petitioners were released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds after being arrested under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 78021 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 420 Year 2020 Thana CHOUTARWA District West Ripusudan Dubey @ Ripusudan Dwivedi aged about 30 years Male. 2. Madhurendra Dubey aged about 44 years Male. Sudarshan Dubey aged about 43 years Male. All sons of Sharda Dubey 4. Ketan Dubey @ Rajnish Kumar Dubey aged about 22 years Male Son of All Resident of Village Bariarwa PS Chautarwa District West The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Bashishth Narayan Mishra Advocate Mr. Md. Arif APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ... Opposite Party s ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29 07 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners on 20.07.2021 which was allowed 3. Heard Mr. Bashishth Narayan Mishra learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Arif learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78021 dt.29 07 2021 4. The petition on behalf of petitioners no. 3 and 4 namely Sudarshan Dubey and Ketan Dubey @ Rajnish Kumar Dubey have already been withdrawn earlier and is restricted to petitioners no. 1 and 2 namely Ripusudan Dubey @ Ripusudan Dwivedi and Madhurendra Dubey 5. The petitioners no. 1 and 2 apprehend arrest in connection with Chautarwa PS Case No. 420 of 2020 dated 02.10.2020 instituted under Sections 302 and 201 34 of the Indian 6. The allegation against the petitioners no. 1 and 2 is that they had killed the brother of the informant 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the first part of the FIR it appears that the informant was witness to the crime in which the petitioners no. 1 and 2 have also been named but from the later part it is clear that he was not an eye witness as it is stated that he along with other family members had tried to locate the deceased who had not returned home and only next morning the body was recovered which clearly proves that he was not an eye witness to the incident. Learned counsel submitted that there is long history of enmity litigation between the parties as they have filed cases against each other. It was submitted that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are accused in two cases Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78021 dt.29 07 2021 filed by the informant side and one other case but not under grave sections. It was submitted that the deceased was a hardened criminal and was accused in several murder cases and was living in the village of his sister in law and not in his original village and three brothers of the deceased had been killed because of their criminal history either in police encounter or by others and the deceased himself was accused in Ramnagar PS Case No. 1086 which was instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in which trial was pending. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye witness or independent witness to support the prosecution story that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 had killed the deceased. It was submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the Panch of Gram Kuchery of Salha Bariarwa PS Chautarwa West Champaran and had conducted several panchayati against the informant and the informant’s brother in law namely Yadov Lal Yadav due to which they have been implicated being members of the same family. It was submitted that much prior to the present case the petitioner no. 1 had instituted Chautarwa PS Case No 2818 on 13.12.2018 against the informant and his brother in law as also nephew of the informant alleging snatching of Rs 50 000 at gun point and also mercilessly assaulting him. Further it was submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is also a witness in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78021 dt.29 07 2021 Complaint Case No. 656 C of 2017 in which the informant is an accused and the petitioner no. 1 had given evidence against him. It was submitted that there is no eye witness and only on suspicion they have been made accused 8. Learned APP submitted that the brother of the deceased who is the informant has named the petitioners as one of the perpetrators of the crime. However it was not controverted that in the FIR itself it has been stated that there is litigation between the sides 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner no. 1 namely Ripusudan Dubey Ripusudan Dwivedi and petitioner no. 2 namely Madhurendra Dubey be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs 25 000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM 1st Bagaha District West Champaran in Chautarwa PS Case No. 4220 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners no. 1 and 2 that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 and the bailors shall execute Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78021 dt.29 07 2021 bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioners no. 1 and 2 andthat the petitioners no. 1 and 2 shall co operate with the police prosecution and the Court. 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 10. 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 opportunity of hearing to the petitioners no. 1 and 2. 11. The petition stands disposed off in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: 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.”