Jitendra Jha And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.20939 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -197 Year- 2016 Thana -TAJPUR District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================
1. Jitendra Jha, son of Late Satyadeo Jha,
2. Chandan Jha @ Chandan Kumar Jha, Son of Sri Jitendra Jha,
3. Prashant Jha @ Prashant Kumar Jha, Son of Sri Jitendra Jha All are Resident of Village- Mujauna, P.S.- Waini O.P., DistrictSamastipur. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, the petitioners are seeking Anticipatory bail in connection with Tajpur (Waini) P.S. Case No.197 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the F.I.R., the informant has made a statement that her husband, late Lakshman Jha was working as Jyotisi. In the morning, he had gone outside to collect the flower, at about 4:00 am. one Vijay Kant Jha raised alarm. Upon hearing the alarm, when the informant went outside the house found that the dead-body of her husband was lying on the ground
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20939 of 2017 (4) dt.21-08-2017 2/2 with cutting throat. In the first instance, apprehension has been shown against one Ram Kumar Jha and his son, but later on, statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. has been made by the informant, stating therein that the petitioners have created wrong impression and illusion that it is the Ram Kumar and his son, who were involved in killing her husband, when she could know the real truth that Ram Kumar Jha has not come nearby village, then she could know the real affair and has made allegation against the petitioners to have killed her husband. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have criminal history as stated in paragraph no.2 of the bail application. Looking to the nature of allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U T