Sanjeet Barnwal @ Sanjeet Kumar Barnwal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.34172 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -33 Year- 2017 Thana -JHAJHA District- JAMUI ======================================================
1. Sanjeet Barnwal @ Sanjeet Kumar Barnwal Son of Lakhan Barnwal, Resident of Village-Purani Bazar, Jhajha, POlice Station Jhajha, District Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Jhajha P.S. Case No. 33 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections-302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
There is allegation in the written report that this petitioner called the brother of the informant on telephone and thereafter, the cousin brother of the informant went speaking in the house that he has been called by this petitioner on telephone. Thereafter, he did not return. On the next day, the informant made search for his brother and dead body of cousin brother of the informant was found and motorcycle on which, brother had gone after receiving call from this petitioner, was also lying there.
It is mentioned in the written report itself that the petitioner had taken Rs. 12,00,000/- from brother of the informant (since
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34172 of 2017 (3) dt.20-09-2017 2/2 deceased).
The case diary has been received in the case. The informant in his further statement and other witnesses, have supported the case of the informant. They have stated that this petitioner had taken money from several persons and he has also taken an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rs. Fourteen lacs) from the deceased. Therefore, from the allegation made in the written report as well as the material, available in the case diary, there is strong motive against this petitioner.
Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail, which will be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.
(Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T