Guddu Sao @ Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17728 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-687 Year-2015 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== GUDDU SAO @ MANISH KUMAR S/O KEDAR MAHTO R/v- Shahpur, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Dr. Bipin Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 448, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. As per F.I.R., in the night of 04.08.2015, after taking meal, while the informant and her family members were sleeping, she heard sound of cries of her father-in-law, motherin-law and sister-in-law and when she came out, she saw their bodies under flame of fire. On hearing alarm, local people assembled and admitted them to hospital. Later, father-in-law of informant told that F.I.R. named accused including this petitioner had demanded his land and on refusal, they by hatching a conspiracy spread petrol on them and burnt. During course of treatment, father-in-law of informant and her daughter died.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17728 of 2023(2) dt.23-06-2023 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. At the relevant time, petitioner was posted as facilitator in Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. He is in no way concerned either with the accused or the deceased. Other co-accused persons were already acquitted, vide Sessions Trial No. 410 of 2017.
However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the bail petition and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific and direct allegation against him that he alongwith other F.I.R. named persons committed heinous crime, in which two persons died.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T