Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29784/2016rejected

Bhola Singh Yadav @ Bhola Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-06Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29784 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2016 Thana -JAGDIHSPUR District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Bhola Singh Yadav @ Bhola Singh Son of Late Ram Nand Singh, Resident of Village- Ram Nath Tola, P.S:- Piro, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 11/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The wife of the deceased alleged that the petitioner and others have got a land transferred in their name from her husband, but they did not pay the consideration amount. When the consideration amount was demanded the petitioner threatened to kill her husband, who went to Surat out of fear. He returned only three days ago before his death. On 12.01.2016 the petitioner took her husband Jitendra Rai (deceased) on the motorcycle of Shankar Rai, but Jitendra Rai did not return.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Jitendra

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29784 of 2016 (2) dt.06-09-2016 2/2 Rai (deceased) had series of litigation with his wife. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence. On mere suspicion the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

It appears that the wife of the deceased has made very specific allegation that the petitioner took her husband somewhere else on the motorcycle of Shankar Rai and thereafter Jitendra Rai, husband of the informant, did not return. During the course of investigation many witnesses have stated that petitioner took the deceased with him.

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

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