Prem Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37607 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2022 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran ====================================================== Prem Ram Son Of Sri Kundan Ram Resident Of Village- Kohra Bhawanipur, P.S.- Srinagar (PUJAHA), District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 17-11-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Betttiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 60 of 2022 lodged under Sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C.

As per the F.I.R., the case has been filed against unknown. Informant in this case is Chaukidar who got information that a dead body has been recovered near big canal of river Gandak.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said dead body is of lady from whom, one old mobile set with sim whose mobile no. has been disclosed in the F.I.R. has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37607 of 2022(3) dt.17-11-2022 2/3 recovered. Counsel for petitioner submits that name of the petitioner has come in this case by virtue of the confessional statement, in which petitioner has disclosed that after marriage with one Chotu Ram, she eloped with Saheb Ansari and due to save the prestige of the family, this occurrence took place. Learned counsel for the petitioner himself mentioned in paragraph 8 that upon confessional statement of the petitioner, the weapon of the offence, the knife has been recovered from his house but he submits that in the absence of forensic examination, the weapons used in the commission of crime cannot be concluded. Upon specific query that whether charge has been framed or not, counsel submits that charge has not been framed in this case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 01.02.2022.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, therefore, bail petition of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, liberty is hereby granted to petitioner to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37607 of 2022(3) dt.17-11-2022 3/3 pray for bail 9 months after framing of charge. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

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