Rajendra Paswan And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34043 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -490 Year- 2015 Thana -BARACHATTI District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Rajendra Paswan, S/o- Late Janki Paswan

2. Jitendra Paswan @ Jitu Paswan, S/o- Rajendra Paswan Both residents of village Dhangain, P.s.- Barachatti, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neerad Parashar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M. Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 20-07-2017 Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dayal, APP for the State.

The two petitioners are father and son. They are named accused of Barachatti P.S. Case No. 490 of 2015 registered under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

The allegation, in substance, is that when the son of the informant was going to call labourers, he was intercepted and assaulted. On hearing the sound of three rounds of firing, when the informant went to the place, he could see the petitioners and other co-accused who told him about the brutal killing of his son. The motive has also been alleged.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that merely on hear say, the F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant. Some other co-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34043 of 2017 (2) dt.20-07-2017 2/2 accused of the present case have been granted privilege of regular bail. The informant subsequently filed an application in the Court about the incorrect/wrong implication of the petitioners. Mr. Dayal opposed the prayer.

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in course of investigation, several witnesses have supported the prosecution case which incriminates the petitioners in the crime. Considering the severity of the allegation and the other materials reflected from the record, this Court is not satisfied that a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out to the petitioners. Prayer is rejected.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U T