Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32968/2017rejected

Karu Manjhi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-31Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32968 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2016 Thana- KAUAKOL District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.

Karu Manjhi. Son of Late Jiva Manjhi 2.

Manohar Manjhi, Son of Karu Manjhi, Resident of VillageGandhi Dham, P.S. Kawakola, District- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI MANOJ KUMAR - 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 31-10-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Kawakola P.S. Case No. 73 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is the husband of the victim. During investigation no witness has supported the allegations against these petitioners. The daughter of the informant might have fled away with her children. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that victim is still traceless. Petitioners, being the husband and father-in-law is very much responsible to trace out the victim. They did not lodge any FIR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32968 of 2017(4) dt.31-10-2017 2/2 in this regard. During investigation, witnesses have said that husband and wife always used to quarrel. It has also come that she was brutally assaulted, done to death and thereafter her dead body was made to disappear.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T