Alleged of killing, the petitioner was granted bail on furnishing the grounds for the victim being suicidal and allegations to be based only on suspicion: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 346620 Arising Out of PS Case No. 73 Year 2020 Thana Kochadhaman District Kishanganj 1. Hakimudin Male aged about 32 years Son of Aiyub. 2. Quaimuddin Male aged about 42 years Son of Aiyub. 3. Abbas Male aged about 45 years Son of Dil Mohammad. 4. Khalique Male aged about 40 years Son of Dil Mohammad. Chasmuddin @ Kasmuddin Male aged about 38 years Son of Late All resident of Village Bodi Baitta PS Thakurganj District Kishanganj The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s Mr. Radha Mohan Singh Advocate For the State Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay APP For the Informant Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22 06 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Radha Mohan Singh learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar learned counsel for the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.346620 dt.22 06 2021 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Thakurganj PS Case No. 720 dated 15.06.2020 instituted under Sections 302 201 34 of the Indian Penal Code 4. On 03.05.2021 the application on behalf of petitioners no. 2 and 3 namely Quaimuddin and Abbas respectively was disposed off as withdrawn and stands restricted to petitioners no. 1 4 and 5 namely Hakimuddin Khalique and Chasmuddin @ Kasmuddin 5. The allegation against the petitioners no. 1 4 and 5 is of killing the son of the informant 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that only on suspicion they have been made accused as it is alleged that they were seen running away from the place of occurrence. It was submitted that there is no witness to the crime more so about the involvement of the petitioners. It was submitted that the false implication is due to past land dispute between the parties in connection with which ten days prior to the incident scuffle had taken place between them and both the sides had lodged case against each other. It was submitted that during investigation witnesses have stated that the deceased was of dull mind and had also earlier tried to commit suicide and thus it can well be a case of suicide. In support of such contention it was submitted that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.346620 dt.22 06 2021 postmortem report also does not disclose any injury on the body of the deceased. It was further contended that independent witnesses have clearly stated that the deceased was of dull mind and that he had taken the extreme step because of the informant not taking him along when he had gone out of the village due to which the deceased had committed suicide. Further it was contended that even the informant himself has only raised suspicion that because there was past dispute between the parties the petitioners may have killed his son without there being any material in support thereof 7. Learned APP from the case diary submitted that the informant has raised the suspicion about the involvement of the petitioners in the death of his son. However it was not controverted that independent witnesses have stated that the deceased was of dull mind and that he had taken the extreme step because of not being taken along by the informant. It was also not controverted that the postmortem report does not disclose any external injury on the body except for ligature mark on the neck which indicates hanging and death due to asphyxia 8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that there was past dispute between the parties and the informant had seen the petitioners running away from the place where the son of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.346620 dt.22 06 2021 the informant was found hanging. However he also could not controvert the statement of the independent witnesses and the finding in the postmortem report 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 petitioner no. 1 namely Hakimudin petitioner no. 4 namely Khalique and petitioner no. 5 namely Chasmuddin Kasmuddin 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate Kishanganj in Thakurganj PS Case No. 720 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and further that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the said petitioners andthat the said petitioners shall co operate with the police prosecution and the Court. Failure to co operate shall lead to cancellation of their bail 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the said petitioners to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.346620 dt.22 06 2021 immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned petitioners 11. The application stands disposed off in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was alleged of killing the informant’s son. The grounds were formed by the petitioner and claimed that the allegations were not valid and that the informant’s son was suicidal and the allegations were only based on suspicion. The Court after considering the facts and circumstances granted the pre-arrest bail and the application was disposed of on the terms and conditions. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Hakimudin and ors v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 34666 of 2020]. 
The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with Case, instituted under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the accused have killed the informant’s son.

The petitioners’ learned counsel argued that they have been charged solely on suspicion because they were allegedly spotted fleeing the scene of the crime. It was argued that there was no witness to the crime, and even less so to the petitioners’ involvement. It was said that the false insinuation stemmed from a previous land dispute between the parties, in which a skirmish occurred ten days previous to the incident and both sides filed a lawsuit against one other. Witnesses said throughout the investigation that the deceased had a sluggish intellect and had previously attempted suicide.

The deceased’s body was also found to be free of any injuries, according to the post-mortem report. It was also claimed that independent witnesses had plainly said that the deceased was of a sluggish mind and that he had taken the extreme step because the informant had failed to accompany him when he went out of the village, resulting in the deceased’s suicide. Furthermore, it was claimed that even the informant has simply generated suspicions that the petitioners may have killed his son because of a previous quarrel between the parties, even though there is no evidence to back this claim.
The Informant also did not controvert the witnesses and findings of the post mortem report. Also, the body of the deceased was found hanging.
The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna allowed the pre-arrest bail on the terms and conditions of cooperation. The application was hence disposed of.
Click Here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with Case, instituted under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the accused have killed the informant’s son. 
The petitioners’ learned counsel argued that they have been charged solely on suspicion because they were allegedly spotted fleeing the scene of the crime. It was argued that there was no witness to the crime, and even less so to the petitioners’ involvement. It was said that the false insinuation stemmed from a previous land dispute between the parties, in which a skirmish occurred ten days previous to the incident and both sides filed a lawsuit against one other. Witnesses said throughout the investigation that the deceased had a sluggish intellect and had previously attempted suicide.

The deceased’s body was also found to be free of any injuries, according to the post-mortem report. It was also claimed that independent witnesses had plainly said that the deceased was of a sluggish mind and that he had taken the extreme step because the informant had failed to accompany him when he went out of the village, resulting in the deceased’s suicide. Furthermore, it was claimed that even the informant has simply generated suspicions that the petitioners may have killed his son because of a previous quarrel between the parties, even though there is no evidence to back this claim.
The Informant also did not controvert the witnesses and findings of the post mortem report. Also, the body of the deceased was found hanging.
The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna allowed the pre-arrest bail on the terms and conditions of cooperation. The application was hence disposed of.
Click Here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The petitioners’ learned counsel argued that they have been charged solely on suspicion because they were allegedly spotted fleeing the scene of the crime. It was argued that there was no witness to the crime, and even less so to the petitioners’ involvement. It was said that the false insinuation stemmed from a previous land dispute between the parties, in which a skirmish occurred ten days previous to the incident and both sides filed a lawsuit against one other. Witnesses said throughout the investigation that the deceased had a sluggish intellect and had previously attempted suicide. 
The deceased’s body was also found to be free of any injuries, according to the post-mortem report. It was also claimed that independent witnesses had plainly said that the deceased was of a sluggish mind and that he had taken the extreme step because the informant had failed to accompany him when he went out of the village, resulting in the deceased’s suicide. Furthermore, it was claimed that even the informant has simply generated suspicions that the petitioners may have killed his son because of a previous quarrel between the parties, even though there is no evidence to back this claim.
The Informant also did not controvert the witnesses and findings of the post mortem report. Also, the body of the deceased was found hanging.
The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna allowed the pre-arrest bail on the terms and conditions of cooperation. The application was hence disposed of.
Click Here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The deceased’s body was also found to be free of any injuries, according to the post-mortem report. It was also claimed that independent witnesses had plainly said that the deceased was of a sluggish mind and that he had taken the extreme step because the informant had failed to accompany him when he went out of the village, resulting in the deceased’s suicide. Furthermore, it was claimed that even the informant has simply generated suspicions that the petitioners may have killed his son because of a previous quarrel between the parties, even though there is no evidence to back this claim. The Informant also did not controvert the witnesses and findings of the post mortem report. Also, the body of the deceased was found hanging. The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna allowed the pre-arrest bail on the terms and conditions of cooperation. The application was hence disposed of.