Ramdas Prajapat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34059 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2018 Thana- ROSHANGAANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Ramdas Prajapat, Son of Late Yogi Prajapat, Resident of VillageHussainganj, P.S. Banke Bazar, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. None.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-06-2018 Heard Sri Rana Pratap Singh, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner.None appeared on behalf of the State, whereas Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel, has voluntarily appeared on behalf of the informant to oppose the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a peculiar case, in which the petitioner ( father of the deceased) has been arrayed as accused by his daughter-in-law. It has been argued that despite the fact that it was alleged that in the occurrence, one of the accused had given at least four blows of knife on the deceased, during postmortem examination, no such injury was found and only lacerated wound has been noticed

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34059 of 2018(2) dt.25-06-2018 2/2 during postmortem examination. He further submits that the informant herself has stated that there was land dispute. On the aforesaid ground, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the informant, opposing the prayer for bail, submits that there is specific accusation against the petitioner , in which the informant has stated that while she along with her husband and children were sleeping, accused persons including this petitioner entered into the house and started assaulting and, thereafter, when they thought that the husband of the informant had already died, they fled away. He submits that the wife of the deceased is an eye witness to the occurrence and she has specifically supported the case. In view of specific accusation of participation of the petitioner in the occurrence, in which he himself was one of the assailant, I do not find any ground the extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) nawalkrs/- U T