← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45299/2015rejected

Munna Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2016-01-04Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45299 of 2015 (3) dt.04-01-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45299 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -106 Year- 2015 Thana -SABAUR District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Munna Pandey Son of Late Bir Bahadur Pandey resident of village - Thatheri Tola, Sabour,P.S. Sabour, Distt. - Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Srivastava (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 04-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sabour P.S. Case No. 106 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (D), 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

Allegedly, Muskan Kumari 11 years old minor daughter of the informant was gang raped and killed by coaccused Pritam Tiwary and the petitioner and her dead body was recovered from the room of the petitioner kept beneath the bed. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner has got no concern with the occurrence, he was not living in that room, he has not called the victim to watch TV and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45299 of 2015 (3) dt.04-01-2016 only on suspicion he is suffering in custody to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that the petitioner refused to give key of the room and thereafter, lock of the room of the petitioner was broken and the dead body was recovered having several injuries even on her private part.

In the facts and circumstances stated above and considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner heinous in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T