Harendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49314 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2021 Thana- MUFFASIL District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

HARENDRA PASWAN Son of Late Mahesh Paswan Resident of Barki Bela (Badki Bela), P.S.- Muffasil, Dist. - Aurangabad. 2.

Chhote Paswan @ Ashok Paswan @ Ashok Kumar Paswan Son of Late Kanchan Paswan Resident of Barki Bela (Badki Bela), P.S.- Muffasil, Dist. - Aurangabad.

3.

Umesh Paswan Son of Jeevan Paswan Resident of Barki Bela (Badki Bela), P.S.- Muffasil, Dist. - Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-04-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

The petitioners pray for grant of anticipatory bail in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 21/2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no evidence against the petitioners and there is no eye-witness who has seen the occurrence. He also submits that father of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49314 of 2021(3) dt.05-04-2022 2/2 petitioner was killed by the deceased and because of enmity, he has been falsely implicated in this case.

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the petitioner is one of the accused in the brutal killing of the deceased and he has motive also and materials have come during the investigation to connect him in the crime.

Considering the above submissions, it appears that the deceased has been killed by the F.I.R. named persons including these petitioners for having killed the father of the petitioner. Considering the above, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T