Latest News
Back
Document:
Guddu Singh v/s state of Bihar
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.—
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.}
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."
Document:
