Guddu Bhagat @ Guddu Yadav @ Raj Kumar vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State and Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Amarpur PS Case No. 177 of 2020 dated 09.04.2020, instituted under Sections 302/34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

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 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.

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.

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 same.

On 12.08.2021, in view of submission of learned APP that the inquest and postmortem reports disclose multiple 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.

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

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 version.

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.

For reasons aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

Interim protection granted to the petitioner under order dated 12.07.2021 stands vacated.