Manish Kumar Karn v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13033 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2021 Thana- BENIPATTI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Manish Kumar Karn Son Of Girishdeo Lal Karn Resident Of VillageMukhiyapatti, P.S.- Saharghat, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs.Ritika Rani Mr. Dinu Kumar Mr. Vardaan Mangalam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 23-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Benipatti P.S. Case no. 243 of 2021 instituted for the offence under Sections 363, 365 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, informant's younger brother Budhinath Jha @ Abinash Kumar Jha is traceless from his clinic. After hectic search, he could not trace out. Informant has raised strong suspicion, against staffs of nursing home for kidnapping his brother and murder. It is further alleged that his dead body has been found in burnt condition .

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13033 of 2022(4) dt.23-11-2022 2/3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is a doctor by profession and running a clinic in the name of Ananya Nursing Home, which was not registered for which petitioner has been imposed fine of Rs. 50,000/- to which he has deposited.

Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that co-accused Purnkala Devi has named the petitioner in her confessional statement. In case diary there is sufficient materials and circumstantial evidence is available. During investigation, several witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case which is mentioned in para 135, 146, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159 of the case diary. Para 3 of the counter affidavit shows that deceased had given representation against the petitioner and others before his death for unlawful practice of nursing home medical care centre.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and considering the fact that several witnesses have supported the prosecution story during investigation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. His application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13033 of 2022(4) dt.23-11-2022 3/3 However, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, the same may be considered by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Sushma/shivani U T