Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15127/2020rejected

Jitendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2020-03-03Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15127 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2019 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan ====================================================== JITENDRA RAM Son of Late Ramnath Ram Resident of Village - Aadampur, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District - Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2020 As prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the petition. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code to which Section 302 IPC was added later on.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics. Parties are pattedar and due to the dispute regarding land he has falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15127 of 2020(2) dt.03-03-2020 2/2 this case. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 24.10.2019.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer fr bail and submits that petitioner is named accused and there is direct allegation of assault against him which has resulted in the death of the victim. Post mortem report also supports the allegations. He, therefore, submits that petitioner does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T