Kailu @ Kailu Gop v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(From The Official Chambers Via Video Conferencing) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20483 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2019 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

KAILU @ KAILU GOP S/o Rudal Gope Resident of Village- Chicknawan Bena, Distt- Nalanda. Presently Residing at Village- Atramchak, P.S.- Noor Sarai, Distt- Nalanda.

2.

Jyoti @ Jyoti Gope S/o Rudal Gope Resident of Village- Chicknawan Bena, Distt- Nalanda. Presently Residing at Village- Atramchak, P.S.- Noor Sarai, Distt- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tej Narayan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-01-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 98 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant Anjani Devi, who is wife of the deceased Gopal Prasad has lodged this case with allegation that co-accused Subodh @ Golu took her husband at about 7 p.m. and when her husband returned he started vomiting and he apprised the informant that the present petitioners and co-accused Subodh Kumar had administered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20483 of 2020(5) dt.05-01-2022 2/2 him poisonous substance. The husband of the informant died in the way to the hospital.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the witnesses in paragraph No. 8, 9 and 10 of the case diary have fully supported the case, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T