In Vjay Prasad Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Manoj Misra passed an order which deemed it "appropriate to direct the learned counsel for the State to bring on record the ballistic report with regard to the pistol said to have been recovered from Sudama Sahani @ Sudama Sahni, as also the details with regard to the SIM Card being used at the relevant time/CDR, if the same has been recovered relating to Ramesh Mahto." The matter is to be listed on July 30, 2025.
Patna High Court's Justice Harish Kumar had heard the case which arose Motihari, East Champaran. The petitions of Ramesh Mahto and Sudama Sahani were heard together and the order was passed on November 20, 2024. The application for grant of bail to the petitioners who are in custody in connection with Motihari Town Case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The prosecution alleged that on June 26, 2024 while the informant and his elder brother, Suresh Prasad Yadav, went on his four wheeler and reached near a railway crossing, in the mean time, two unknown miscreants who were standing there, opened fire, due to which the informant’s brother sustained gun shot injury. After causing fire arm injury, both the miscreants sat on one Apache motorcycle alongwith one pillion rider and fled away. The fire arm injuries sustained to the deceased proved fatal.The petitioners' counsel contended that the FIR was instituted against unknown miscreants, however, during the course of investigation the name of the petitioners sprung up on the confessional statement of co-accused persons; save and except the confessional statement, there is no other material suggesting the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. It was also contended that during the course of investigation various other co-accused persons have been apprehended, but they did not disclose the name of the petitioners in causing the murder of the deceased. So far the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 62213 of 2024 is concerned, the only material which has come during the course of investigation is that before the occurrence, the petitioner had conversation with one of the co-accused person, whose mobile was allegedly fallen at the place of occurrence in course of fleeing. So far the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 64450 of 2024 is concerned, during the course of investigation it has come that on the confessional statement of Harishankar Paswan, the weapon which is said to be used in the crime, has been recovered from the house of the petitioner. It is lastly contended that now the investigation of the crime is complete and the chargesheet has been submitted and, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or threatening the witnesses. The petitioners undertake that they will fully cooperate in the proceeding of the Court.
Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the materials collected
during the course of investigation apart from the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, the Court is not acceded to the prayer of the petitioners for the present, however the Court directed that the petitioners shall be released from the custody after framing of the charge in the afore-noted case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran.
No comments:
Post a Comment