Jagdish Ram @ Jagdish Das v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.48925 of 2015 Arising out of PS.Case No. -110 Year- 2015 Thana -KARPI District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Jagdish Ram @ Jagdish Das, Son of Naresh Das, resident of Shantipuram, Magidpur, P.s. Kinjar, District - Arwal.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anita Kumari Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Karpi P.S. Case No. 110 of 2015 for the offences instituted under Sections 365/34 of the IPC.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16.06.2015 about 10.30 A.M., co-accused Shivanand Das @ Hero and Dinesh Ram came at Petrol Pump and called Neeraj Kumar @ Sadhu, the brother of the informant on Mobile Phone, whereupon, Niraj Kumar @ Sadhu, bearing of Motor Cycle No.BR-01AY-2532 went there and they alongwith Niraj Kumar @ Sadhu went to Karpi market but Niraj Kumar @ Sadhu did not return his house. The informant started searching him but he was traceless. The
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48925 of 2015 (3) dt.04-02-2016 2/3 informant suspected that co-accused Shivanand Das @ Hero, Dinesh Ram and petitioner Jagdish Ram in connivance with each other had kidnapped his brother Neeraj Kumar @ Sadhu, as there was love affair between Neeraj Kumar and Anita Kumari the daughter of Jagdish Ram.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Whatever, the allegation is there i.e., against Shivanand Das and Dinesh Ram with whom the deceased is said to have left for market. The petitioner's name has figured in the present case only for the reason that the deceased was having love affair with the daughter of the petitioner hence, he has been made accused. There is no eye witness nor any circumstantial evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in the present case.
On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with Karpi P.S. Case No. 110/2015 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand)
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48925 of 2015 (3) dt.04-02-2016 3/3 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Arwal, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T