← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36582/2016rejected

Sanjeev Sah @ Sanjit Sah And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2016-11-15Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36582 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -46 Year- 2014 Thana -ANDHRAMATH District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Sanjeev Sah @ Sanjit Sah Son of Tribhuwan Sah

2. Bhogi Lal Sah son of Pramod Sah Both resident of Village- Bageba, P.S.- Andhramath, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Gulnar Begam, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-11-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Andhramath P.S. Case No. 46 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant named the petitioners along with other accused persons and alleged that all the accused persons caught her husband and tied his hands and legs and put cloth in his mouth. The accused persons assaulted her husband and ultimately Pramod Sah, Tribhuwan Sah, Kari Sah and Laxmi Sah twisted neck of her husband causing his death on the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no specific allegation is made against the petitioners. Four persons namely Pramod Sah, Tribhuwan Sah, Kari Sah and Laxmi Sah are

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36582 of 2016 (4) dt.15-11-2016 2/2 alleged to have twisted the neck of the husband of the informant and on account of which he died. The police submitted charge sheet under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. No offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, but it appears that the petitioners are alleged to have tied the hands and legs of the deceased and assaulted him.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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