Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22208 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2020 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna ====================================================== PRAVEEN KUMAR, Aged about 40 years, Male, Son of Deo Charan Paswan, Resident of Village- Ramani Bigha, P.S.- Dhanarua, Distt- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-08-2020 Heard Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Praveen Kumar and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, the learned Additional P.P. on the petition. The petitioner apprehends their arrest in Dhanarua P.S. Case No.17 of 2020, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, father of the deceased, disclosed in his statement that Praveen Kumar, the petitioner, Manoj Khatekar and Sheo Kumar came to his house on 14.01.2020 at noon and took his son along with them to Dhanarua market. The informant came to know that they all purchased chicken and took dinner in the hotel. Thereafter the accused persons on account of dispute with regard to payment of money assaulted his son and killed him and they also threw the dead body.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22208 of 2020(2) dt.17-08-2020 2/3 During the course of search, on the next day, the dead body of the son of the informant was recovered from a field. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is co-villager of the informant. The petitioner is a teacher and he has no manner of concern with the sale and purchase of lands. The petitioner is not a broker. The petitioner was present in his school on the date of occurrence. The petitioner did not visit the house of the informant and took his son to Dhanarua market. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case but the learned Additional P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

It appears that the informant made specific allegation that the petitioner and two others, namely, Manoj Khatekar and Sheo Kumar visited the house of the deceased in presence of his father and took the deceased along with them. The informant and other witnesses also disclosed this fact that the petitioner and others took the son of the informant to Dhanarua market and on the next day, the dead body of the son of the informant was found. The dead body bore certain external ante-mortem injuries.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22208 of 2020(2) dt.17-08-2020 3/3 Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T