Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39440/2024bail rejected

Vinod Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-30Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39440 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2023 Thana- YADOPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Vinod Sah SON OF LATE CHUNI SAH VILLAGE- SATAHA KACHHARI TOLA, PS- PAHARPUR, DIST- MOTIHARI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 30-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Jadopur (Yadopur) P.S. Case No.318 of 2023 lodged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against four named accused persons including the petitioner against whom there is allegation that those four persons in connivance with each other and in furtherance of the common intention have killed the daughter of Prabhu Sah and it is basically owner killing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner has committed such offence as alleged in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39440 of 2024(2) dt.30-05-2024 2/2 F.I.R. and his name has come by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused Prabhu Sah.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 29.12.2023 having clean antecedent.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is directly involved in killing of the deceased and to save the owner, they (accused persons) killed the deceased.

7. Upon specific query whether charge has been framed or not. Counsel submits that as per his knowledge, charge has not been framed till date.

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T