Patna High Court - Orders
Khushbu Singh @ Khushbu Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 13 April, 2022
Author: A. M. Badar
Bench: A. M. Badar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71290 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-477 Year-2021 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna
======================================================
KHUSHBU SINGH @ KHUSHBU KUMARI, W/o Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh
@ Rajeev Singh Resident of B-15, Asha Enclave, New Patlipura, P.S.-
Pataliputra, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surendra Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jai Narain Thakur
Mr. Md. Mustaque Alam, APP
For the informant : Mr. Surendra Dwivedi.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR
ORAL ORDER
8 13-04-2022The applicant/accused in Crime No. 477 of 2021, registered with Kadamkuan Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act at the instance of first informant, Vikram Singh, by this application is seeking her release on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused. He argued that the police has siphoned the amount from her bank account. It is further argued that the FIR is lodged by Vikram Singh, aged about 32 years on 18.09.2021 alleging that two persons fired bullet at him and he suspected the present applicant and her husband Dr. Rajeev in the incident. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71290 of 2021(8) dt.13-04-2022 2/6 It is further argued that the FIR itself shows that the injured got himself admitted to the hospital by going to the hospital of his own. By pointing out the discharge ticket, it is argued that the injured had admitted himself under the fake name as Sachin by showing his age as 27 years. With these facts, it is argued that the FIR is creation of the due deliberation and it is afterthought.
The learned APP opposed the application by contending that the present applicant had relations with the first informant and as the relationship turn sour, she hired two contract killers through co-accused, Mihir Singh and had attempted to commit murder of the first informant. The learned APP has placed reliance on the supplementary statement of Vikram Singh as well as the documentary evidence in the form of the CDR and transfer of money by the first informant in the account of co-accused, Dr. Rajeev, who happens to be the husband of the present applicant.
The learned counsel for the first informant argued that it is a case of conspiracy and the evidence is available in the case diary.
I have considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the material placed before me.
The FIR of the subject crime is lodged on the date of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71290 of 2021(8) dt.13-04-2022 3/6 the incident itself by injured Vikram Singh while taking treatment at PMCH, Patna. The incident in question, as seen from the FIR, took place on 6:00 A.M. and the FIR was lodged by him at 10.15 A.M. on 18.09.2021. Hence, at pre-trial stage, this Court is unable to record the finding that the FIR is a creature of the afterthought. Admission of the injured under the fake name Sachin cannot be given any ore bearing importance at this stage because within four hours of the incident, the FIR came to be lodged by the injured who suffered bullet injury.
The FIR as well as supplementary statement of injured Vikram Singh shows that he was having intimate relationship with this present applicant and she has induced him to become trainer of her husband Dr. Rajeev Singh in order to enable the injured to have entry in her house.
Record of investigation shows that the relationship had seen rough weather with passage of time and the first informant was trying for the break up. The Investigating Officer has collected the material to show that from the account of his relative, the first informant has transferred an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as well as Rs. 19,000/- to the account of husband of the present applicant. The first informant has also averred that he paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash to the present applicant. This payment Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71290 of 2021(8) dt.13-04-2022 4/6 according to the first informant was in return of favours done by the present applicant for soliciting the relationship with the first informant.
It is case of the prosecution that by indulging in criminal conspiracy, the offence was committed by hiring contract killer through co-accused, Mihir Singh. Record of investigation shows that there was thick relationship between the present applicant and the injured Vikram Singh. From 01.09.2020 to 01.05.2021, the applicant had called injured Vikram Singh on 1790 occasions and had talked with him for 520305 seconds. Similarly, from 05.03.2021 to 04.05.2021, she called the present applicant on 85 occasions and had talked with her for 27042 seconds. All these talks were mostly in night hours. This prima facie constitutes evidence regarding intimate relationship between the applicant and the injured first informant.
According to the prosecution case, the applicant had hired contract killers through co-accused, Mihir Singh. It is seen from 01.05.2021 to September, 2021, the applicant had contacted co-accused, Mihir Singh telephonically on 227 times and had talks with him for 141927 seconds. From 16.05.2021 to 02.05.2021, she had talked with Mihir Singh on 10 occasions Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71290 of 2021(8) dt.13-04-2022 5/6 telephonically for 8340 seconds. It is seen that soon before the incident of murderous assault on the first informant, co-accused Mihir Sinjgh had made two telephonic calls to the contract killer and had talked with him for 44 seconds.
The record of investigation further shows that moneys were transferred to the bank account of co-accused, Rajeev Kumar, who happens to be the husband of the present applicant on behalf of the first informant towards return of monetary favour made by the applicant.
It is not possible to collect tangible evidence in respect of offence relating to criminal conspiracy as meeting of mind for doing a criminal act cannot be a material thing which can be pursued by physical senses. However, the circumstantial evidences collected by the prosecution prima facie shows that the applicant who happens to be the main accused had attempted to eliminate the first informant by hiring the contract killers and by getting the first informant fired by means of the fire arm through the contract killer.
Considering the nature of offence and the manner in which it is committed, no case for grant of bail is made out. The application is accordingly rejected.
However, considering the fact that the applicant is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71290 of 2021(8) dt.13-04-2022 6/6 women were under going pre-trial detention, the learned Court below is directed to commence the trial and to complete it within a period of nine months from today.
(A. M. Badar, J) sanjeev/-
U T