Prince Singh @ Rahul Kumar Singh And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties.

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Daltonganj (T) P.S. case

no. 306 of 2018 registered under Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 Arms Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners is that the co-accused persons took the deceased

Monu Verma from his house, and after a while hearing the sound of firing from gun as the informant and his family members came out from his

house; they saw the petitioners along with the two co-accused persons fleeing away with pistol in their hands and on reaching the place of occurrence,

they found the deceased to be lying in an injured condition having sustained bullet injuries and the deceased was taken from the place of occurrence to

the hospital, where the doctor declared him bought dead. It is next submitted that the deceased was an accused in a case of murder of the father of

the petitioners, in respect of which, Palamau Sadar P.S. case no. 428 of 2013 has been instituted after the FIR was lodged by the petitioner no. 2. It is

then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. Drawing attention of the court to confessional statement of the co-accused

Shubham Kumar Singh, the copy of which is at page 21-22 of the brief, it is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the

confessional statement, the co-accused Shubham Singh has stated that along with the deceased he went near the school, where Golu Shukla was

taking the liquor and along with him, the deceased-Manu Verma and the co-accused Shubham Singh also took liquor and Golu Shukla sent the victim

to bring cigarette and when Shubham Singh left the place of occurrence for bringing cigarette, he heard the sound of firing and he went back to the

place of occurrence school and saw that Golu Shukla and his friend fleeing away and Monu Verma was lying there with bleeding injury and out of

fear, Subham Singh also fled away. He has categorically stated that Subham Giri and both the petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence.

Drawing further attention of the court to confessional statement of Golu Shukla at page 23-25 of the brief, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that in his confessional statement, the co-accused Golu Shukla @ Nitesh Shukla has categorically stated that he has murdered Manu Verma as Manu

Verma was attempting to murder him and he has also stated that that the petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence and he does not

know the petitioners. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Learned counsel for the

petitioners further submits that in paragraph 52 of the case diary, it has been mentioned by the supervising officer, being that as yet there is no material

against the petitioners though investigation of the case is going for more than one year, hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, in the

event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on bail on

furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

CJM, Palamau, Daltonganj in connection with Daltonganj (T) P.S. case no. 306 of 2018 subject to the condition that the petitioners will co-operate

with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile number and

photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency of the

case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.