Gaurav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25366 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -198 Year- 2016 Thana -BARHARA District- PURNIA ====================================================== Gaurav Kumar, Son of Shyama Nand Mandal, Resident of VillageSukhasan Kothi, P.S.- Barhara, Kothi, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhav Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshnand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Barhara P.S. Case No. 198 of 2016, registered under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. The allegation of informant Vinayak Kumar is that on 26.09.2016 at about 8.00 A.M., Dipak Kumar, brother of the informant, went along with the petitioner after boarding on his motorcycle bearing Reg. No. BR-11N-4439 stating that he would return within half an hour. Thereafter, at about 10.00 the informant come to know that his motorcycle is lying near Tetrai bahiyar, then he went there and found that his motorcycle was lying there and slipper of his brother was also lying there, but he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25366 of 2017 (3) dt.19-08-2017 2/2 did not find any trace regarding his brother, when informant returned to his house then he come to know that this petitioner returned to his house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, in the way, the petitioner got down from the motorcycle and returned to his house and he has no knowledge about the brother of the informant, whose dead body was found next day of the occurrence in the river.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T