High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Satya Narain Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 10 December, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Satya Narain Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 10 December, 2010
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Cr.Misc. No.36256 of 2010
                                SATYA NARAIN SINGH
                                           Versus
                                 THE STATE OF BIHAR

3   10.12.2010

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the state assisted by learned counsel for

the informant.

Petitioner is named in the FIR with specific allegation

that he alongwith one, co-accused, Vinod Singh committed

murder of Manoj Kumar by opening indiscriminate firing while

the aforesaid, Manoj Kumar was coming to Patna by his

motorcycle.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the name of this petitioner surfaced in this case on the

basis of so-called oral dying declaration of the deceased but as

a matter of fact, the alleged occurrence took place on

18.09.2009 and the deceased was taken to PMCH, Patna on

the same day but the FIR was lodged on 19.09.2009. There is

no explanation as to why the FIR was not recorded on

18.09.2009, particularly in the circumstance, when the

deceased had already stated the name of the petitioner not only

before the informant but also before one police official of

Garkha Police Station.

The perusal of case diary shows that on the alleged

date of occurrence, when the police rushed at the place of

occurrence having got the information of incident, the injured
-2-

had already been taken to Patna for treatment. Subsequently,

one S.I., Sri Ram Mishra, went to PMCH and he came to know

that the injured has been taken to operation theatre. The S.I.

met the injured who, anyhow, disclosed the name of the

petitioner as well as other accused as his assailants but the

statement of injured could not be recorded. Subsequently, when

the injured died, the statement of informant was recorded.

In my view, the points, which have been raised by the

Learned counsel for the petitioner, may be considered at the

time of trial and it would not be proper for prosecution to reply

the above-said points, at least, at this stage.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to

grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for

bail of the petitioner, Satya Narain Singh, in connection with

Garkha P.S. Case No. 168 of 2009, stands rejected.

AKV/-                              (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)