Mankhush Ram @ Mankhush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25426 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-263 Year-2023 Thana- SONBERSHA RAJ District- Saharsa ====================================================== 1.

Mankhush Ram @ Mankhush Kumar Son Of Chaturi Ram @ Chulho Ram Resident Of Village - Kanaura, P.S. - Sonbarsa Raj, District - Saharsa 2.

Chaturi Ram @ Chulho Ram Son Of Late Yashodhar Ram Resident Of Village - Kanaura, P.S. - Sonbarsa Raj, District - Saharsa 3.

Suldeep Kumar Son Of Pulkit Ram Resident Of Village - Kanaura, P.S. - Sonbarsa Raj, District - Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Sonbarsha Raj P.S. Case No. 263 of 2023 lodged on 15.11.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on added section 302 of the IPC pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against four named accused persons including the present petitioners. The allegation against the present petitioners is that they have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25426 of 2024(2) dt.01-05-2024 2/2 attacked the grand sons of the informant with sharp weapon and subsequently during treatment, one of the grand son of the informant namely Shankar Kumar died. The other grand son of the informant sustained several injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel also submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioners are clean. Counsel further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Divyansh/- U T