In the present case a Bail was rejected to the appellent,Guddu Singh,in charges for murder.
Arvind Kumar Singh, filed a complaint that his father was a Dafadar in circle number 3 of kharik police station.After the retirement of Arvind father, Patna High Court appointed his elder brother, Rajesh Kumar Singh as Chaukidar in 2001. Rajesh Kumar Singh was married to Khushbu Kumari and even while staying in Kushboo parent's place, he used to go and attend his duty. Rajesh had three kids Vivek Kumar , Muskan Kumari and Nisha Kumari.
After few years of marriage Rajesh Kumar assaulted and threatened his wife and asked her to leave the place while he was attending his everyday duty but after sometime on persuasion of his wife and a brother in law he returned to his sasural and used to tell his mother that under conspiracy he might be killed.
On 9th September 2016, Arvind Kumar receives a phone call from Inspector of Kharik Police Station about the death of his brother,Rajesh Kumar found on PCC Road When Arvind came to Kharik he found the dead body of his brother Rajesh. It has been alleged that under the conspiracy, the accused person killed his brother and made the dead body disappear. The body had various injuries and foam was coming from the mouth. The Case was instituted under section 302 [Murdrer] of Indian Penal Code in Patna High Court.
There are in total 12 witnesses, which included the mother and a daughter of Rajesh Kumar. In the investigation, it was found that Guddu Singh had committed the murder and was convicted by the police under -
section 302 {murder} and S120 (b) {Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—
of IPC was ordered. In the present appeal,the Counsel of appellant has tried their best to persuade this Court to depict that it is a case of no evidence as the girl was hardly four years at the time of occurrence and gave her statement before the Court while she was about six years old, inasmuch as, no substantive statement has been made before the Police. It has also been submitted that the F.I.R. has also been instituted after the long delay even after the preparation of inquest report.
The Court after listening to both the Parties ordered,
''Looking to the materials in entirety, we arrive to a finding that it is not a fit case where we should exercise the discretion in favour of the appellants to grant bail for the present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected."
86540
103860
630
114
59824
