Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35020/2015rejected

Chhedi Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2015-11-23Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35020 of 2015 (3) dt.23-11-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35020 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -58 Year- 2015 Thana -NARPATGANJ District- ARRARIA ======================================================

1. Chhedi Mandal Son of Late Buddhan Mandal Resident of Village - Palasi, Police Station - Narpatganj, District - Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kr.Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Narpathganj P.S. Case No. 58 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the husband of the informant was killed by the miscreants and before death the husband of the informant stated the name of the petitioner and other co-accused that they have shot him and further the petitioner was seen fleeing away by the brothers of the informant.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2015, due to village politics the petitioner has been implicated, there is no evidence against the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35020 of 2015 (3) dt.23-11-2015 petitioner, the two eye witnesses vide paragraph 24 and 25 of the case diary have stated that co-accused Tuntun Yadav and Guddu Yadav shot the deceased and they fled away with the petitioner on motorcycle.

Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that name of the petitioner was taken by the deceased before his death and the petitioner was along with the co-accused.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T