Devendra Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9373 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-410 Year-2022 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== DEVENDRA SAHNI Son of Bajrangi Sahani R/v- Laskaripur, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking prearrest bail in connection with Kanti P.S. Case No. 410/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph '3' of the application. As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that his elder son Raja Kumar told his mother that he is going along with Devendra Sahani to Laskaripur on motorcycle and not returned till late night. He called on his mobile but he has not received his call. He further alleged that one Chanchal Kumar was informed him that the dead body of Raja Kumar was lying on the bank of river. Informant has full faith that Devendra Sahani, Prabhat Kumar and Ramesh Sahni have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9373 of 2023(2) dt.16-05-2023 2/2 kidnapped his son and killed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and only on suspicion petitioner has been made accused in this case.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation against the petitioner being that the deceased had lastly gone with him whereafter he did not return, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused.

This application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T