Muchkund Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46832 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -169 Year- 2017 Thana -BAHADURPUR District- DARBHANGA ======================================================
1. Muchkund Jha, S/o Suman Jha @ Ranjan Jha, Resident of VillageDarhar, P.S.- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Rajeev For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Smt. Pushpa Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bahadurpur P.S. case No. 169 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, father of the deceased, alleged that Raushan Kumar Jha, Raghav Rai, Vikash Jha, Muchkund Jha, the petitioner, and Amit Mishra took his son on the pretext of participating in a reception ceremony but they conspired to kill his son. After some time, the informant got information that his son got injuries and he was taken to PMCH, Patna for better treatment but later on the informant was informed that his son died. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence. During the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46832 of 2017 (2) dt.09-11-2017 2/2 course of investigation, many witnesses have stated that son of the informant got scuffle with the relatives of Dr. Sanjay Mishra in which he got injuries and died but it appears that the person who disclosed the third story is not an eye witness of the occurrence and he deposed before the police on the basis of hearsay. The petitioner and others took the son of the informant with them and thereafter dead body of the son of the informant was found. Prayer for anticipatory bail of Raushan Kumar Jha has already been rejected vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42695 of 2017 and the case of petitioner stands on similar footing. Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T