Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52080/2016rejected

Ravi Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-01Mr. Justice Arun Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52080 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -53 Year- 2016 Thana -MANSAHI District- KATIHAR ====================================================== Ravi Sahni Son of Kanhai Sahni (wrongly mentioned in accused column of F.I.R. as Shiwan Sahni), resident of Mohalla- Hawai Adda, P.S. Katihar (S), District- Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bachan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is in custody in connection with Mansahi P.S. Case No. 53 of 2016 registered under sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation in brief is that this petitioner along with one Dilip Sahni called the deceased from his home and subsequently his dead body was found near the river Koshi. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no eye witness of this case relating to murder and only the allegation is that he had called the deceased from his house by telephone and this petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and another co-accused Dilip Sahni has been granted bail by a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52080 of 2016 (4) dt.01-03-2017 coordinate Bench vide order dated 25.1.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 51935 of 2016.

It appears from paragraph-16 and 17 of the case dairy that tower location of the deceased and the petitioner was almost same at some places showing moving together. The petitioner had called the deceased telephonically and thereafter the dead body was found and postmortem report reveals cause of death strangulation. So, the case of the petitioner stands on different footing to co-accused Dilip Sahni.

Having considered the said fact and circumstances, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Arun Kumar, J) S.Sb/- U T