Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43288 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2020 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== AJAY KUMAR @ AJAY MAHTO S/O RAM REKHA SINGH R/O DHODHNA MAJHAULIA, P.S-DUMRA, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamal Kishore Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh Ms. Preety Kunwar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-08-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP, Mr. J.N. Thakur assisted by the learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dumra P.S. Case No. 378 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code on latter under Sections 364, 302, 320(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant is father of deceased Raju Kumar aged 15 years. Initially the FIR was lodged against unknown as the boy was missing but later on his dead body was recovered from heap of straw and Section 302 of the IPC was added.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43288 of 2021(4) dt.23-08-2022 2/2 first instance, the FIR was lodged for missing of the deceased, against unknown person but later on the dead body was recovered and Section 302 of the IPC was added and he has submitted further that the name of the present petitioner along with co-accused Bilash Singh figured in self-inculpatory confessional statement of Sunil Mahto.

The learned counsel for the informant and the learned Addl.P.P. have submitted that the confessional statement of Sunil Mahto is explicit in which he stated that the present petitioner and Bilash Singh took away Raju Kumar and after killing him they concealed his dead body in heap of straw.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances and also considering that the investigation is still going on, I do not think it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) niku/Sonali/- U T