Santosh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24442 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2020 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Santosh Ram, Son of Prabhu Ram, R/O Village- Kayeel Bakhari, P.S.- Piar, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pallava Vijeta, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Naresh Ray, APP For the Informant : Mr.Ravi Nandan, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-10-2021 Heard the parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that as per FIR, genesis of the occurrence has been alleged to be connected with the dispute between the deceased and the named accused persons including the petitioner regarding government Nal Jal Yojna for using bad water pipe, the deceased had raised objection earlier that he came at the house of the deceased and asked to accompany him to go to Bariyapur for purchasing some medicine as the petitioner's wife is ill and on that pretext the deceased went to market algonwtih the petitioner but did not return.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24442 of 2021(3) dt.28-10-2021 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case only on suspicion. He further submits that there is no eye witness in the present case. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had last seen with the deceased. The petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 22.10.2020. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent which is mentioned in para 3 of the bail petition.

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail petition and submits that there is sufficient evidence available against the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Piar P.S. Case No. 199/2020 from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Muzaffarpur (East). Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge.

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