Mukesh Thakur @ Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8867 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-839 Year-2020 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Mukesh Thakur @ Mukesh Kumar Son Of Rajendra Thakur Proprietor Riya Enterprises, Near Police Line Chowk, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur, R/O Village- Harsinghpur, Mahavir Mandir, P.S.- Sakra, DistrictMuzaffarpur 2.

Anil Chaudhary @ Anil Kumar Son Of Shiv Kumar Chaudhary Proprietor Kabari Dukan, Near Dharamkanta, R/O Mohalla- Sarswatinagar, Manju Niwas, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kalyan Shankar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioners are said to have killed the son of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8867 of 2022(3) dt.05-09-2022 2/2 the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Actually, son of the informant sustained injury on road accident in the night of 01.11.2020 who was brought to the hospital for treatment but during course of treatment he died. Some persons having enmity with the petitioners misguided the informant and got the FIR lodged against them. After knowing the actual facts the informant compromised the case with the petitioners. He submits that there is no eye witness in the present case. He further submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that deceased died due to hemorrhage, coma and shock.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 839 of 2020. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T