Munshi Marandi @ Munshi Murmu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2684 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-236 Year-2021 Thana- BHAWANIPUR District- Purnia ====================================================== MUNSHI MARANDI @ MUNSHI MURMU S/O LATE DEWAN MARANDI Resident of Village- Bhelwa, P.S.- Bhawanipur, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Md. Hussain, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 09-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 236 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 302 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Purnea. The allegation against the petitioner is that he hit the second arrow on the left side of the chest of the brother of the informant and one co-accused Jetha Marandi also hit first arrow upon him due to which informant's brother succumbed to his injuries.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2684 of 2023(2) dt.09-02-2023 2/2 the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He also submits that the informant is not an eye- witness and on suspicion the petitioner is made accused in this case. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that his arrow hit the left side of the chest of the brother of the informant and sustaining injury he died. It is further submitted that specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T