Tahmid Alam @ Lal Babu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2331 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2021 Thana- ANGARH District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.

TAHMID ALAM @ LAL BABU Son of Nahid Alam Resident of Village - Chandwar Kolha, P.s.- Angarh, Distt.- Purnea. 2.

TAHMID ALAM ALIAS LAL BABU CHANDWAR KOLHA THANA ANGARH DISTRICT PURNEA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nirmala Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Angarh P.S. Case No. 22 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution version, the father of the informant had a contract with co-accused Mahbool Hussain

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2331 of 2022(2) dt.08-08-2022 2/3 for construction of the road. The father of the informant went to demand his money, whereupon the present petitioner and Mahbool Hussain abused him and threatened him to kill. On 30.08.2020 at about 10:30 night, one Mohammad Liyakat Ali, called the father of the informant, who accompanied with him, but did not return. In the next morning, at the information of Liyakat Ali the informant went to the place of occurrence, where he found the dead body of his father. He expressed his affirm belief that the accused persons named in the FIR, including the present petitioner, have committed murder of his father. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was Md. Liyakat Ali who called the father of the informant and not the present petitioner.

He has also submitted that there is some delay in lodging of the FIR. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR. Prior to the occurrence, he had threatened to kill the father of the informant. Soon after threatening, the dead body of informant's father was recovered.

The investigation is still continuing the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2331 of 2022(2) dt.08-08-2022 3/3 is named in the FIR and there is allegation that he prior to the death of the deceased had threatened to kill the informant's father, as such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) shweta/- U T