Suman Kumar @ Tuttu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13257 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2020 Thana- PARSAUNI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== SUMAN KUMAR @ TUTTU S/O LAL BABU SAH R/o village- Harpursari, P.S.- Parsauni, District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Hans Lal Kumar Mr. Bharat Bhushan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 31-03-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Parsauni P.S.Case No. 38 of 2020.

The informant Raj Kumar Sah is the grand-father of the deceased Anshu Kumari, aged about 15 years. On 02.06.2020, when the grand-daughter of the informant did not return to her house, hectic search was conducted. Next day, i.e. on 03.06.2020 the informant received an information that a dead-body is floating in Muraul pond. He identified the deabody of his grand-daughter Anshu Kumari. The informant has expressed his firm belief that the present petitioner and coaccused Raman Kumar had murdered the deceased and threw the dead-body in the pond.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13257 of 2021(4) dt.31-03-2022 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and final form has been submitted against co-accused Raman Kumar. He has also submitted that the cause of death, as per the post mortem report, is due to asphyxia as a result of drowning.

On the other hand, the learned APP has submitted that the witnesses in paragraph nos. 10, 13, 14, 15 and 17 have unanimously stated that the present petitioner used to tease the deceased, before her death.

Considering the materials against the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case for anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

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