Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18670/2025rejected

Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2025-04-11Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18670 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Rai S/O Late Daresh Ray @ Ramshreshth Yadav Residence of Village- Kodariya, P.S.- Runni Saidpur (Garha), DistrictSitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2025 Heard Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 25.11.2024 in connection with Runni Saidpur (Garha) P.S. Case No. 84 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 15.03.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/304(B)/201/34 of IPC.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other co-accused persons committed murder of the deceased and concealed her dead body.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18670 of 2025(3) dt.11-04-2025 2/2 FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that he is husband of the deceased and informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and even no one has seen the alleged occurrence.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the basis of the material available on the record and the case diary, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has come during investigation in paragraph Nos.3,4,9 and 18 of the case diary which suggests that the petitioner is involved in the present crime in question.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Runni Saidpur (Garha) P.S. Case No. 84 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T