Pramod Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6012 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2019 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Pramod Bhagat S/O- Amerdev Bhagat Resident Of Village - Babhnauliya, P.S. - Turkauliya, District - East Champaran. 2.
Mithlesh Kumar S/O- Kishun Bhagat Resident Of Village - Hardiya, P.S. - Turkauliya (Raghunathpur), District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bal Govind Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1 Ms.Shail Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-02-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and have been falsely implicated in the present case being Sarhu and brother in law (sala) of the deceased.
4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6012 of 2020(5) dt.12-02-2024 2/2 submits that the wife of the deceased was having illicit relationship with the petitioner no.1, who is brother in-law (Jija) of the wife of the deceased. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the wife of the deceased was arrested and she in her confessional statement disclosed the name of the petitioners, who have been involved in the occurrence. It is thus submitted that since the wife of the deceased has taken the name of the petitioners, who are her Jija and brother, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for the privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned Additional P. P., 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 stand rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T