Golu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2986 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-484 Year-2024 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Golu Kumar S/O Krishna Sah R/O Village- Chuhari, P.S- Kumarbagh, Distt.- West Champaran.

2.

Krishna Sah S/O Bhikari Sah R/O Village- Chuhari, P.S- Kumarbagh, Distt.- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Shakir Ahmad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 484 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that a dead body of woman concealed in sack was recovered from a place near a railway crossing and her body bore mark of injuries.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2986 of 2025(3) dt.08-05-2025 2/2 petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case based on the confessional statement of apprehended accused. It is further submitted that father of the deceased is own brother of the Petitioner No. 2 and he had filed a petition regarding missing of his daughter. It is further submitted that subsequently, during the course of investigation, the father of the deceased was taken in custody along with Prabhu Sah, his own brother; and they, in their confessional statement, disclosed the name of the petitioners as being accomplice in the crime. 5.

To the Court it appears that the offence is heinous and it is a case of honour killing where the entire family members were involved in killing of the deceased and thereafter her mutilated body was thrown near a railway crossing, as such the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T