High Court

vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the victim in the present case is an 8 years old boy who has been killed mercilessly by inflicting numerous stab wounds. The offence is heinous in nature and the applicant is a contract killer who has committed a heinous crime and therefore he is not entitled to be released on bail.

8. The learned A.G.A. for the State has also opposed this application and he has submitted that under the orders of the Magistrate concerned, the investigating officer had gone to the jail to take the samples of hair and blood of the applicant for D.N.A. examination but the applicant declined to give the samples. This act of the applicant gives rise to adverse inference against the applicant.

9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that initially the FIR was lodged against unknown persons; subsequently, the informant stated that on 28.01.2024, his son had been killed by Jai Prakash due to an old property dispute and that some person had seen Jai Prakash and one Mehandi Hasan taking away the informant's son on a motor-cycle; upon this statement, Jai Prakash was arrested and a knife was recovered on his pointing out from an open place and in his custodial statement, he stated that he had killed the informant's son along with Mehandi Hasan; subsequently, on 30.11.2024, the informant himself stated that two persons namely Ashok and Arvind had seen Jai Prakash along with Mehandi Hasan taking away his son; it was for the first time on 06.02.2024 that the informant stated that Mehandi Hasan was not involved in commission of the killing of his son and it was the applicant who committed the offence along with Jai Prakash and he has stated that Jai Prakash had wrongly mentioned the name of Mehandi Hasan and witnesses Ashok and Arvind had wrongly mentioned the name of Mehandi Hasan under some confusion and therefore the applicant has been implicated in the present case; Ashok and Arvind both have stated that they had seen Jai Prakash and the applicant taking away a boy and they have not stated that they had identified the boy; both the aforesaid persons have stated that after coming to know about the dead body of the boy having been recovered, they came to know that the boy had been killed by Jai Prakash and the applicant yet this application was not filed promptly and initially the informant, Ashok and Arvind stated that Mehandi Hasan was involved in commission of offence with Jai Prakash; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 07.02.2024 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

11. Let the applicant- Ravi Bharti @ Pintu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 3.4.2025 (Manoj K.)

vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the victim in the present case is an 8 years old boy who has been killed mercilessly by inflicting numerous stab wounds. The offence is heinous in nature and the applicant is a contract killer who has committed a heinous crime and therefore he is not entitled to be released on bail.

8. The learned A.G.A. for the State has also opposed this application and he has submitted that under the orders of the Magistrate concerned, the investigating officer had gone to the jail to take the samples of hair and blood of the applicant for D.N.A. examination but the applicant declined to give the samples. This act of the applicant gives rise to adverse inference against the applicant.

9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that initially the FIR was lodged against unknown persons; subsequently, the informant stated that on 28.01.2024, his son had been killed by Jai Prakash due to an old property dispute and that some person had seen Jai Prakash and one Mehandi Hasan taking away the informant's son on a motor-cycle; upon this statement, Jai Prakash was arrested and a knife was recovered on his pointing out from an open place and in his custodial statement, he stated that he had killed the informant's son along with Mehandi Hasan; subsequently, on 30.11.2024, the informant himself stated that two persons namely Ashok and Arvind had seen Jai Prakash along with Mehandi Hasan taking away his son; it was for the first time on 06.02.2024 that the informant stated that Mehandi Hasan was not involved in commission of the killing of his son and it was the applicant who committed the offence along with Jai Prakash and he has stated that Jai Prakash had wrongly mentioned the name of Mehandi Hasan and witnesses Ashok and Arvind had wrongly mentioned the name of Mehandi Hasan under some confusion and therefore the applicant has been implicated in the present case; Ashok and Arvind both have stated that they had seen Jai Prakash and the applicant taking away a boy and they have not stated that they had identified the boy; both the aforesaid persons have stated that after coming to know about the dead body of the boy having been recovered, they came to know that the boy had been killed by Jai Prakash and the applicant yet this application was not filed promptly and initially the informant, Ashok and Arvind stated that Mehandi Hasan was involved in commission of offence with Jai Prakash; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 07.02.2024 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

11. Let the applicant- Ravi Bharti @ Pintu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 3.4.2025 (Manoj K.)