Pooja Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25910 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-323 Year-2024 Thana- GHANSHYAMPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.

Pooja Devi W/O Sri Krishna Kant Jha @ Murari Jha @ Murari Kumar Resident of Village- Lagma, P.S.- Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga 2.

Krishna Kant Jha @ Murari Jha @ Murari Kumar S/O Sri Magnu Jha @ Manganu Jha Resident of Village- Lagma, P.S.- Ghanshyampur, DistrictDarbhanga 3.

Tripurari Jha @ Tripurari Kumar Jha S/O Sri Magnu Jha @ Manganu Jha Resident of Village- Lagma, P.S.- Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mithilesh Thakur, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2.

This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No.323 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under sections 103(1), 238 and 61(1) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3.

The F.I.R. was registered against unknown persons. During investigation, it has come that the deceased was called by the petitioner no.1 in the night and upon said call, the deceased had left the house. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found in the next morning.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25910 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 4.

The petitioners are in custody since 30.10.2024.

5.

The family members of the deceased have said that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the deceased and when the deceased started demanding his money back the petitioners started delaying the return of the money and in the night he was called and subsequently, killed by the petitioners. The neighbours of the petitioners have seen the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 taking away the dead body in the night on a motorcycle. The petitioner no.1 was also seen visiting the house of the deceased. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of regular bail, who are said to have murdered the deceased for a small amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. (Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U T