Md Azhar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29577 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2021 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== MD AZHAR Son of Istiyak Resident of Village - Karichak, P.s.- Birpur, Distt.- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukeshwar Dayal, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Gautam, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 09-01-2023 Heard Mr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, learned APP for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No. 257 of 2021 for the offence registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per the FIR against the unknown accused persons, the lady wife of the deceased alleged that her husband was running a betel shop (Manas Pan Bhandar) and three accused persons in a motorcycle came there and one of them shot in the back of his head causing his death in course of treatment. Subsequently, during the investigation, it came to notice that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29577 of 2022(3) dt.09-01-2023 2/2 accused-petitioner was having affairs with a girl and prior to this occurrence, they were caught near a temple after which the accused-petitioner was thrashed and the deceased took away his mobile and was using the same putting in his own sim. The said mobile was made functional. Upon seizure of the said mobile, the call recording between the girl and accused-petitioner cropped up in which he was planning to eliminate the deceased. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has been made an accused suggesting his strong involvement in the matter and during the investigation, the name of petitioner has cropped up on the basis of call recording, this Court is not inclined to grant him privilege of anticipatory bail, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/Neha/- U T