Vakil Miya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39844 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2020 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

VAKIL MIYA Son of Rais Miya @ Raktu Miya Resident of Village - Panapur, P.S. - Panapur, District - Saran at Chapra. 2.

Anwar Miya @ Anawar Miya, Son of Salim Miya Resident of village - Dumarsan Bangra, P.S. - Mashrak, District - Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP For the Informant :

Ms. Malika Mazumdar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 02-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the four named accused persons including the two petitioners herein are stated to have assaulted the father of the informant leading to his death. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case because of land dispute between the parties which would be evident from the FIR itself. The allegations are general and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39844 of 2021(4) dt.02-03-2022 2/2 omnibus in nature. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents and are in custody since 16.7.2020. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that not only the two petitioners are named in the FIR but there is direct allegation against them of having assaulted the father of the informant leading to his death.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the contents of the FIR and the material that has transpired in course of investigation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the application is rejected.

Liberty is granted to the two petitioners to renew their prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/- U T