Janak Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4355 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2022 Thana- EKMA District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

JANAK RAI SON OF LATE DWARIKA RAI R/V- RADHIYA, P.S.- MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT- SIWAN 2.

GYANTI DEVI WIFE OF JANAK RAI R/V- RADHIYA, P.S.- MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT- SIWAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Ban Bihari Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, petitioners and other accused persons with a criminal conspiracy killed the informant's daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, respectively. The petitioners are quite innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations levelled against the petitioners is general and omnibus in nature. They have not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4355 of 2023(2) dt.10-02-2023 2/2 committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. They have been wrongly implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the husband of the deceased is in judicial custody. He further submits that from the perusal of the Postmortem report, it is quite clear that no any external and internal injury was found on the body of the deceased. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition 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 as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T