Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10813/2017rejected

Raushan Begum @ Roshan Begum And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-02Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10813 of 2017 (3) dt.02-05-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10813 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -261 Year- 2016 Thana -PUPRI District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Raushan Begum @ Roshan Begam W/o Late Md. Shaheed.

2. Md. Tufail S/o Md. Shaheed. Both R/o Village-Rampur, Khurd, P.S.- Pupri District-Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioners are in custody since 04.11.2016 in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 261 of 2016 registered under Sections 363, 302, 201, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, who are of clean antecedent, are innocent and have not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioners being the wife and son of the deceased respectively are living peacefully with the deceased and they are made accused in this case merely on the basis of suspicion only. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. The petitioners are rotting in custody for the last five months. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that these petitioners have committed murder of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10813 of 2017 (3) dt.02-05-2017 deceased, which is evident from paragraph nos. 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of case diary. Moreover, the S.D.P.O has found the case to be truce against the petitioners, which is evident from paragraph No. 48 of the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to these petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of these petitioners is, hereby, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J.) Brajesh/- U T