SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the defect no.6(1) pointed out by the stamp reporter is hereby ignored. Heard Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Usha Kumari No.1, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) This is the second attempt wherein the appellant is renewing his prayer for bail by filing the instant appeal under Sec. 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dtd. 10/12/2021 passed by learned A.D.J.-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Katihar in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 101 of 2021 registered under Ss. 302, 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Ss. 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected vide order dtd. 15/9/2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 356 of 2022 after taking into consideration the materials available on record, especially the recovery of the arms which is said to have been used for the purposes of crime, in question. However, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal, this Court had observed that the learned Trial Court will take all necessary measures to expedite and conclude the trial at the earliest, as preferably within a period of four months. But, till date altogether nine official witnesses are yet to be examined.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits at the Bar that besides the confessional statement before the police which is not admissible in law. Sec. 26 of the Evidence Act stipulates that the confession by an accused while in custody of the police not to be proved against him. However, Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the aforesaid provision wherein it has been made clear that the confession leading to recovery may be proved. In the instant case, the co-accused has given narration of the incident before the police but in view of the aforesaid provision, only confession to the extent of leading to recovery of the weapon may be proved as admissible against the appellant. The remaining part of the statement cannot be admissible under the Evidence Act. He further submits that moreover the weapon which is said to have been recovered that has never been examined as to whether the said weapon is used in the commission of crime or not. Lastly, he submits that the appellant is in custody since 24/6/2021. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the bail prayer of the appellant and submits that earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected on merit and there is no changed circumstance warranting reconsideration his prayer for bail.