Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 39 (PAT)

Ram Jatan Yaday v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-08

SYED MD.MAHFOOZ ALAM

body2008
Judgment 1. Petitioner, Ram Jatan Yadav, is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation, in short, is that the informants nephew Mukesh Kumar, a student of Engineering College had come to his house on 27.1.2007 at 7.00 P.M. and was talking with the family members. In the meantime, one Dharmendra Kumar and Rama Chaukidar came there and asked Mukesh Kumar to accompany them for eating Puri, whereupon, the said Mukesh Kumar accompanied them but when he did not return back till the next morning the informant went to the house of Dharmendra Kumar and made enquiry about his nephew, whereupon, the petitioner told the informant that his nephew had returned back after taking meal. It is further said that on 28.1.07, the dead body of the informants nephew was found lying in a field. On recovery of the dead body, the informant gave his fard- bayan and suspected the hands of the petitioner and the said Dharmendra Kumar and Rama Chaudhary, in the alleged murder. 3. It has been submitted by the learned advocate of the petitioner that the petitioner is an old man aged about 62 years and he has been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion because of the fact that he told the informant that his nephew had returned back to his house. It has further been submitted that the fact is that the deceased Mukesh Kumar was in love with petitioners daughter Sabina Kumari but the informant and his family members did not like the said relationship and, so, the informant alongwith others committed murder of said Sabina Kumari for which Karpi P.S. case no. 10 of 2007 was instituted on the basis of the statement of petitioners wife Ram Kora Devi and due to lodging of the said case the informant falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. On the above grounds, learned advocate of the petitioner prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. It has been submitted by the learned advocate of the informant that the police has found the allegation levelled in Karpi P.S. case no. 10 of 2007 as false and that is why the police submitted final report in the said case mentioning the allegation untrue. 4. It has been submitted by the learned advocate of the informant that the police has found the allegation levelled in Karpi P.S. case no. 10 of 2007 as false and that is why the police submitted final report in the said case mentioning the allegation untrue. Learned advocate of the informant further submitted that during investigation of this case it was found that both the murders had been committed in the house of this petitioner and although there is no eye witness of the actual occurrence but it cannot be denied that without knowledge of this petitioner, who is the father of the main accused, both the murders could not be committed. 5. After going through the case diary of both the cases, I have come to the conclusion that without the knowledge and active participation of this petitioner the murder of the informants nephew and daughter of the petitioner could not have been committed. The nature of the occurrence shows that both the murders were committed either for family glory or for caste glory which is still prevalent in tribal areas. 6. In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, his prayer for bail is rejected.