Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19878/2021bail rejected

Deapak Sah @ Deepak Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-24Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19878 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2020 Thana- SINGHESHWAR District- Madhepura ====================================================== DEAPAK SAH @ DEEPAK KUMAR SAH Son of Shatrughan Sah Resident of Village - Bhawanipur, P.S.- Singheshwar, District - Madhepura ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-01-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 124 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 120(B), 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant, Gudiya Devi, who is widow of deceased Rajendra Goswami, lodged this FIR stating therein that her husband was returning to home, meanwhile, the accused persons including the present petitioners caught him raising the alarm of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19878 of 2021(2) dt.24-01-2022 2/2 'chor chor' they tied him with a pillar and badly assaulted him with lathi, irod rod indiscriminately, sustaining the injuries her husband died.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case was not found true against the present petitioner during investigation and final form has been submitted. Considering the fact that there is specific allegation against the FIR that petitioner were also among the persons who badly assaulted the deceased and cognizance has also been taken against the petitioner. As such, he is not entitled to privileges of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T