Belal Mian @ Samsur Rahman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58271 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2005 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West Champaran ====================================================== Belal Mian @ Samsur Rahman, son of Late Ajijul Rahman, Resident of Mohalla- Mahawat Toli, Post & Police Station- Bettiah, District- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bettiah Town P.S. case No.180 of 2005 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of C.J.M., West Champaran at Bettiah. The prosecution case, in short, is that two unknown persons pulled out pistol from the pocket and shot fire on Ravi Krishna Jhunjhunwala, which hit upon his chest, due to which he fell down and was taken to the Hospital, where he was declared dead. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. His name has come in course of investigation on confession of co-accused. Except

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58271 of 2018(2) dt.19-09-2018 2/2 for confession of co-accused, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in the present case. The eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence have not named the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the other co-accused has already been acquitted by the Trial Court and some of the other coaccused have been granted anticipatory bail. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner has come in course of investigation. The case is of the year 2005. The inordinate delay in filing the present application has not been explained by the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders before the court below and prays for regular bail, same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order taking account the submissions advanced on his behalf.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T