Patna High CourtCR. MISC./12870/2017rejected

Sunil Prasad And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-31Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12870 of 2017 (7) dt.31-10-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12870 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2015 Thana -SILAW District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Sunil Prasad & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar No.1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 31-10-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sialo Police Station Case No. 101 of 2015, disclosing offences under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the informant of the present case had married with his niece Tanuja Kumar @ Pinki and he along with others committed the murder of the deceased. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence Hence, the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of these petitioners and submitted that these

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12870 of 2017 (7) dt.31-10-2017 petitioners have abducted the wife of the informant and killed her. This fact has also been supported by the prosecution witnesses, which is evident from paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary. The co-accused Anil Prasad has confessed his guilt and stated the names of these petitioners regarding their involvement in the alleged occurrence, which is evident from paragragph-23 of the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of these petitioners is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T