Jagdish Sao v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23604 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2024 Thana- KHUDAGANJ District- Nalanda ====================================================== Jagdish Sao Son of Late Ram Baran Sao RO Village -Madhopur PS -Khudaganj, Pin 801303, District -Nalanda State Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar bihar 2.

Sunil Sao s/o-Chhotu Saw , R/O-Narayanpur , PS-Tharthari, Dist-Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Yadav, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. J.N. Thakur, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Shyamal Prakash, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khudaganj P.S. Case No. 85 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103/61(2)/238/3(5) of BNS.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 12.07.2024 at around 12 PM, the informant received a telephonic information that his daughter, Rinku Devi, had been killed by her in-laws and her body had been thrown somewhere. The informant immediately went to her matrimonial home and asked her husband, Masudan Sahu, about her whereabouts. He replied that she had run away. When the informant asked his granddaughter, she stated that her mother had been killed and thrown away by her father Madhusuhan Sao, aunt Pinki Devi, cousin Rahul Kumar, and grandfather Jagdish Sao

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23604 of 2025(4) dt.20-11-2025 2/2 (petitioner). The informant has firm belief that the accused persons including the petitioner killed his daughter and buried her somewhere.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The petitioner is an old man of 80 years of age. He is father-in-law of the deceased.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the husband, father-in-law of the deceased and other accused persons committed murder of the deceased. The daughter of the deceased was present there and she narrated the occurrence to the informant. She has stated that her father Madhusuhan Sao, aunt Pinki Devi, cousin brother Rahul Kumar and her grand father Jagdish Sao (petitioner), after committing murder, had thrown the dead body somewhere. He has also submitted that the petitioner is not 80 years old as according to the FIR, he is 55 years old.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn't deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T