Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25887/2017rejected

Sakti Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-29Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25887 of 2017 (3) dt.29-06-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25887 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -178 Year- 2016 Thana -MAJHAHGARH District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Sakti Singh Son of Raj Kishore Singh, resident of Village- Bhojpurwa, P.S.- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. S. N. P. Sinha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rohit Kumar & Ms. Rashmi, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 178 of 2016 registered under Sections- 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 30.09.2016, police was informed and family members came to the place of occurrence. Thereafter Inquest Report was prepared and the dead body was received in the hospital where post mortem was conducted. The first information report was lodged on 01.10.2016. However, there is no explanation for the delay. No independent witness

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25887 of 2017 (3) dt.29-06-2017 has supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the present case has been lodged in retaliation of Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 228 of 2014. Petitioner is in custody since 22.10.2016.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused and there is direct allegation of causing death by firing from behind against this petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the nature of allegations levelled, I do not feel inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Manish/- U T