Suresh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3054 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2021 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SURESH RAM S/o Munni Ram R/o village- Harpur Bakhari, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Appellant.

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Raju Paswan S/o Late Mangal Paswan Village- Barajagarnath, P.S.- Ahiyapur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Respondents.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Sanjay Parasmani For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'SC/ST Act') against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 16.04.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions JudgeIII-cum Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Muzaffarpur in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 87 of 2021 registered under Sections 302 & 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (r) (s)/3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3054 of 2021(5) dt.28-01-2022 2/2 The son and Bhagina of the informant are said to have been killed by the appellant in association of other coaccused. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to dirty village politics and on suspicion. The allegation levelled against the appellant is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. On Court's query, it is submitted that charge has not been framed as yet. It is also submitted that similarly situated coaccused has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Appellant has been languishing in custody since 18.03.2021.

Learned Spl. PP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the appellant would be at liberty to renew his prayer after framing of charge.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T