Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36031/2024bail rejected

Jahir Mian v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-23Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36031 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2023 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran ====================================================== Jahir Mian Son of Islam Mian Resident of Village- Rupadiah, P.S- Bettiah (M), Dist- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 23-08-2024 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP representing the State.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with with Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 57/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 23.01.2023 by the informant, Meraz Ansari.

3. As per the prosecution story, the allegation has been made in the FIR against unknown of committing murder of the informant's brother and throwing the dead body near a 'Bargaj'. Subsequently, investigation took place and it was found that the lady, wife of the present petitioner was having relationship with the deceased and this was seen by the accused persons

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36031 of 2024(3) dt.23-08-2024 2/2 whereafter, this petitioner gave blow on the head. Though, there is allegation of assault by other persons also, it proved fatal, whereafter, he was thrown near the 'Bargaj'.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the lady has made confession before the Police even going by it, it is not the case of the prosecution that any subsequent blow was given, learned APP submits that he has assaulted on the head.

5. In that background, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody, it is expected that the Trial Court will be taking up the matter seriously so that the matter is taken to its logical conclusion at an earliest.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T