Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49457/2016rejected

Bitoo Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-19Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49457 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -186 Year- 2016 Thana -MANER District- PATNA ====================================================== BITOO RAI SON OF SUDARSAN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGEBRAM CHARI SHERPUR, P.S. - MANER, DISTRICT-PATNA. .... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Madhuranand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3.

19-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

There happens to be specific allegation at the end of informant Lakhi Devi against the petitioner to have accompanied the deceased in the night of 24.04.2016 at about 08:00 P.M. and on the following morning his dead body was found. The motive has also been disclosed by way of having a quarrel amongst them on 22.04.2016 wherein deceased was assaulted with fist and slap and further his mobile was snatched by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that considering the motive it was not plausible to accept that deceased would have allowed to accompany the petitioner. That being so, the story has been purposely introduced to implicate the petitioner in the aforesaid background.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49457 of 2016 (3) dt.19-01-2017 There happens to be consistent statement of the witnesses that deceased was taken away by the petitioner in the night of 24.04.2016 and then thereafter, on following day his dead body was found. During midst thereof, none had claimed to have seen deceased independent to the company of the petitioner. Further, from the postmortem report it is evident that deceased died on account of ante-mortem injury having over his head. Apart from this the time elapsed since death has also covered the relevant period.

That being so, for the present I do not see it a fit case for grant of bail. Prayer for bail is rejected. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) Prakash Narayan U T