Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41660 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -108 Year- 2014 Thana -MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE DistrictGAYA ======================================================

1. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Bhola Yadav R/o Mohalla- Khatkachak, P.S.- Civil Line, District- Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 12-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner Sanjay Kumar apprehends his arrest in M.M.C.H. P.S. Case No. 108 of 2014 registered under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution case the first information report was lodged by the informant alleging that the accused persons assaulted the informant at Boring as there was some scuffle in relation to grazing of she buffalo. Thereafter the informant fled away to another place and then saw that they took his son and then assaulted him. In the morning he found his son dead.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41660 of 2015 (2) dt.12-10-2015 2/2 the petitioner is not named in the first information report and it is stated only that son of Bhola yadav were wearing earring had participated in the assaulted. The learned counsel further submitted that in fact the petitioner is employed at Rajsthan and on the date of occurrence he was not at the spot. Further the identification itself is doubtful as Bhola Yadav has four sons and all of them wear earring .

On the other hand the learned counsel for the State objected the prayer and submitted that the court below has found the ample complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. From perusal of the order of the court below who has referred various paragraphs of the case diary and found that the petitioner was identified by the informant.

In my view it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) M.Rahman/- U T