Arun Bhagat @ Arun Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court decided to grant bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was primarily based on the period of custody the petitioner had already undergone. The Court considered the petitioner's submission that he is a trader and has no criminal antecedent, and that his name surfaced based on the confessional statement of a co-accused who was granted bail. The ratio decidendi is that prolonged custody, coupled with a lack of criminal history and the confession of a co-accused who has been granted bail, can be grounds for granting bail. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to the condition that the bailors must be local traders registered with the GST. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Arun Bhagat, is an accused in Dumara P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018, facing charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has been in custody since June 21, 2018. The petitioner claims to be a trader with no prior criminal record. His involvement in the case reportedly surfaced based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, Mohd. Ali Ansari, who has already been granted bail. The Court was considering a bail application for the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering his period of custody, lack of criminal antecedent, and the fact that his name surfaced based on a co-accused's confession, which is a question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding bail. Arguments for the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that he is a trader, has no criminal history, and has been in custody for a significant period. He also highlighted that his name emerged from a co-accused's confession, who has already been granted bail. The petitioner relied on the fact that the co-accused was granted bail as a precedent. Arguments for the State: The State's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment.