Renu Patel v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.44752 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -25 Year- 2015 Thana -BARHARA District- PURNIA ====================================================== Renu Patel, W/o Pankaj Kumar, R/o Village - Orlaha, P.S. - Barhara, District - Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Avinash, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. Also heard learned counsel for the informant.

One unknown dead body was recovered. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the dead body was of younger brother-in-law of the petitioner and it also came to light that the petitioner had illicit relation with one Rakesh Raushan @ Rai Bahadur Singh and the deceased used to oppose the aforesaid illicit relation as a result whereof petitioner having entered into conspiracy got eliminated the deceased. Furthermore, in course of investigation, one witness, namely, Versha claimed that she had

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44752 of 2015 (3) dt.29-01-2016 2/3 seen a sack lying in the house of the petitioner and she also noticed that flies were loitering on the aforesaid sack and when she enquired about the said sack from the petitioner, she did not give any satisfactory answer and subsequently, the aforesaid sack was removed from the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that co-accused Rakesh Raushan @ Rakesh Roshan @ Ray Bahadur Singh has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court and except the confessional statement of the petitioner as well as the above stated so-called circumstantial evidence, there is nothing against the petitioner and, moreover, investigation against the petitioner has already been completed whereas the petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 03.03.2015.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail pointing out that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence available on the record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. Considering the aforesaid submissions as well as facts and circumstances of the case, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44752 of 2015 (3) dt.29-01-2016 3/3 to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Barhara (Raghuvansh Nagar) P.S. Case No. 25/2015. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Dilip/- U T