← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18203/2025bail rejected

Asafak v. The State Of Bihar

2025-04-10Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18203 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2013 Thana- PALASI District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

Asafak Son of Abbas Resident of village- Barhat, PS- Palasi, District- Araria 2.

Suleman S/o Abbas Resident of village- Barhat, PS- Palasi, District- Araria 3.

Nijam S/o Ibrahi Resident of village- Barhat, PS- Palasi, District- Araria 4.

Ekram S/o Jabbar Resident of village- Barhat, PS- Palasi, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Madhav Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umanath Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Palasi P.S. Case No. 72/2013, registered for offence under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The informant alleged that on 16.06.2013 at 4 PM, his six years old daughter went missing and on the next date at about 9:30 AM, her dead-body was recovered in the field of Shamshad. Informant suspects that these petitioners have killed his daughter by twisting her neck.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been made accused only on suspicion. The police after investigation submitted final form against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18203 of 2025(2) dt.10-04-2025 2/2 petitioners, however, differing with the same, the learned Court below took cognizance.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and this anticipatory bail petition has been filed after lapse of more than 12 years without any plausible explanation of delay. Petitioners have also one criminal antecedent.

6. Considering the nature of accusation and delay in filing the bail petition, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T