Kumar @ Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54949 of 2016 (2) dt.22-12-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54949 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -111 Year- 2016 Thana -MITHANPURA District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Kumar @ Rohit Kumar, son of late Garibnath Singh, resident of village - Orient Club, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, Dist - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. Jamil Akhtar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Bisheshwar Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 22-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016 registered under Sections 302 and 120(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Muzaffarpur.

The accusation is that on 04.05.2016, in the evening, the petitioner being the friend of deceased, Vikash @ Abhishek, came at the door of the informant and accompanied to Vikash @ Abhishek, son of the informant, on motorcycle but he did not return and his mobile was found switched off. On the next day, in the morning, dead body of Vikash @ Abhishek, son of the informant, was found near the railway track at Narayanpur.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54949 of 2016 (2) dt.22-12-2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits while it has detailed in the F.I.R. that petitioner moved with the son of the informant in the evening of 04.05.2016 and the dead body of son of the informant was found in the next day but none had seen the petitioner going with the deceased near the railway track. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T