Ramagya Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18128 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2022 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

RAMAGYA RAY Son of Late Lakhan Rai Resident of village - Rupani Math, P.S.- Patahi, District - East Champaran 2.

Munchun Kumar Rai Son of Ramagya Ray Resident of village - Rupani Math, P.S.- Patahi, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay Mr. Madhurendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-07-2023 Heard the parties.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No.226 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with other co-accused persons are involved in the murder of the son of the informant.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18128 of 2023(4) dt.24-07-2023 2/2 allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. The petitioners have been made accused in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that the petitioners are also involved in the present case as the deceased was last seen with them. 6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

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