Ravi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27637 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-670 Year-2019 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== RAVI KUMAR S/o Gopal Sah Kashera @ Gopal Prasad Kasera Ward No.12, Nagar Panchayat Amarpur, Police Station-Amarpur, District-Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Praveen Kumar For the State :

Mr. A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-12-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner is in custody since 23.12.2019 in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 670 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, when the informant came to his tea shop at 09:30 P.M., he found that his brother who was sitting there is missing and he came to know that his brother has forcibly been taken by this petitioner along with co-accused persons and he must have been killed by them. It is further alleged that there was dues lying with this petitioner to the tune

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27637 of 2020(3) dt.07-12-2020 2/2 of Rs. 4500/- for which this petitioner has threatened with dire consequences.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the informant is not an eye-witness of the occurrence and has not disclosed the source of information on the basis of which the informant came to know the occurrence. It is further submitted that petitioner is already in custody since 23.12.2019. Chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and petitioner has got clean antecedent.

However, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the present bail application and has submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and in paragraph No. 6 of the case diary, he was also seen by the uncle of the informant taking away the deceased.

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the bail application of this petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Saif/- U T