Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16257/2017rejected

Rambilash Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-05-19Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16257 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -26 Year- 2016 Thana -BAKHRI District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Rambilash Singh S/o Late Fakir Singh

2. Murari Singh S/o Rambilash Singh, Both are Resident of VillageRahatpur, P.S.-Balia, District-Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Soni Shrivastava, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-05-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Bakhri P. S. Case No. 26 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The chaukidar lodged the case against unknown after the recovery of the dead body. It transpired that the dead body is of Upendra Singh, Son of Puso Singh, Resident of Rahatpur, P.S.-Balia, District-Begusarai.

Smt. Soni Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the name of the petitioners transpired in the case on the basis of mere suspicion. There is absolutely no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16257 of 2017 (3) dt.19-05-2017 2/2 material against the petitioner. Petitioner no.1 is an old man aged about 80 years old and petitioner no.2 was in custody on the date of occurrence.

But from perusal of the case diary, it appears that, of course, there is no direct material against the petitioners but all the family members of the deceased stated that the petitioners were running after the life of Upendra Singh (deceased) and his family members left the house. The deceased was living in a Math. Besides this fact, the petitioners have got criminal antecedent and they are accused in three cases registered under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the petitioners have got criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Mishra/- U T