Babulal Rajvanshi @ Babulal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16443 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-341 Year-2022 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Babulal Rajvanshi @ Babulal Kumar S/O Munna Rajvanshi R/O Village- Bali Mahri, P.S- Satgawan, Distt.- Koderma (Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Deepak Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Govindpur P.S. Case No. 341 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The son of the informant is said to have been killed by some unknown miscreants and his dead body was found in the paddy field of Raj Kumar Yadav. The name of the petitioner surfaced in this case on the confessional statement of apprehended coaccused.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case merely on suspicion. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that in course of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16443 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 2/2 investigation the informant in further statement has not alleged against anyone but in para-25 of the case diary again in her statement she has raised suspicion against Upendra Kumar and Jitendra Rajbanshi. The said Upendra Kumar and Jitendra Rajbanshi took the name of the petitioner as one of his accomplice. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the petitioner is also involved in the said crime and considering the nature of the offence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T