Julshed Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36377 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2022 Thana- BAHADURGANJ District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Julshed Ansari, S/O Jangi Ansari, Resident of Village- Kharibasli Bangemo, P.S.- Bahadurganj, District- Kishanganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anshul, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 20-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Bahadurganj P.S. Case No.83 of 2022 instituted under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that on 19.03.2022, when the entire family went to bed, his daughter was found missing and it is said that on 23.03.2021, her dead body was found with insects all around her body. The informant identified her as his daughter and pointed finger towards his so-called lover Saidul. The police investigated the matter and ultimately

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36377 of 2022(2) dt.20-09-2022 2/2 came to the conclusion that it is not Saidul rather the brother of the deceased, the petitioner herein who is involved in the said killing. Accordingly, he was taken into judicial custody.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is complete improbability of the brother killing his own sister and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In the considered opinion of this Court when the body of the deceased was found, there were insects around it which clearly shows that her killing took place much before the F.I.R. came to be lodged and in the backdrop of that, the allegation in the FIR by the informant that from 19th March she was missing is/was improbable.

Taking into account the aforesaid fact for the present this Court is not inclined to grant him any relief and the bail application is accordingly rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T