Raushan Kushwaha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15467 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-291 Year-2024 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Raushan Kushwaha Son of Dhanlal Mahto @ Dhannolal Singh Resident of Village - Tenduni, P.S. - Jagdishpur, District - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mrs. Maya Shankar Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Nagendra Upadhyay, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 13-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

2. It is the first regular bail application submitted by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 291 of 2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 103, 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. In this case, the name of the deceased is Ankit Aditya. According to the case of prosecution, on 24.08.2024 at about 08:30 P.M. the present applicant along with other five accused persons came there on their motorcyle and took the deceased Ankit Aditya with them and then, he did not returned. Subsequently, on 25.08.2024 dead body of Ankit Aditya was found lying near Dulanganj Ghagha Road. On the basis of FIR lodged by the informant, offences has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15467 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 2/2 been registered against the accused persons.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is innocent and is falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.08.2024, trial will take time. Therefore, it is prayed that he may be granted benefit of bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondentState opposes the prayer of bail.

6. Perusal of the case diary shows that there is a eyewitness who has seen the present applicant along with the deceased person near the place of occurrence. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record, I am of the view that it is not a case where the present applicant should be granted the benefit of bail.

7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) Siddharth Soni/- U T