Neeraj Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34706 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-702 Year-2022 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== Neeraj Sharma Son of Uttam Sharma Resident of Village- Repura, P.S.- Veldi, Dist.- Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, informant suspects that co-accused Govinda Sharma killed his son and threw the dead body in the river, as the deceased was in love with one Gunja Kumari, who was cousin sister of petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that save and except suspicion, there is no other direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner to show his complicity in the occurrence. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that the present case appears to be a case of honour killing. Petitioner is named in the FIR. Deceased was in love with one Gunja Kumari. Petitioner Neeraj Sharma is cousin brother, whereas co-accused Govinda Sharma is full brother of said Gunja Kumari. As per paragraph 68 of the case diary, witness has stated that earlier also, petitioner and co-accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34706 of 2024(5) dt.25-09-2024 2/2 Govinda Sharma had overpowered son of the informant near the river but he had been saved by villagers who hurriedly rushed to the spot. Post mortem report opines that cause of death is injury caused by hard and blunt substance. Call Details Report also indicates that the petitioner and co-accused Govinda were in regular touch of the deceased at the time of commission of offence.
6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T