Sanjeet Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6331 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-351 Year-2022 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

SANJEET SAHANI Son of Chchatu Sahani @ Chhatu Sahani R/v- Harauli, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali at Hajipur 2.

MAMTA DEVI @ AMATA DEVI Wife of Sanjeet Sahani R/v- Harauli, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali at Hajipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mazharul Hassan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Murli Dhar, APP.

Mr. Navin Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-06-2023 Heard the parties.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, petitioners along with other accused persons, is said to have committed murder of the informant's son and threw his dead body in a Banana Orchard.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6331 of 2023(3) dt.19-06-2023 2/2 general and omnibus in nature. There is admitted land dispute between the parties. There is no eye witness in the present case. No independent witness was examined in the present case. Only the family members of the deceased were examined. The petitioners have been made accused in this case merely on suspicion. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners is serious in nature, hence they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

However, if the petitioners surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below shall pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T