Naresh Yadav @ Naresh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39332 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-453 Year-2023 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== 1.

Naresh Yadav @ Naresh Kumar Son Of Kishun Yadav @ Jaya Krishn Yadav Village- Parsa (TAMAUT) Ward No. 11, Ps- Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura 2.

Nilesh Kumar Son Of Gano Yadav Village- Parsa (TAMAUT) Ward No. 11, Ps- Murliganj, Dist- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pawan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Murliganj P.S. Case No. 453 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation is that on 28.10.2023 in the evening, two boys took the informant's daughter by a motorcycle, but was not tracing out of her. On 29.10.2023, an information regarding one dead-body was given to the informant by some villagers and police, and thereafter, the informant went to the Murliganj Police Station, where she identified the dead body as her daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39332 of 2024(2) dt.10-07-2024 2/2 this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the deceased was married lady and her husband had left the deceased 4-5 years ago. He further submits that petitioner no. 1 is son-in-law of the informant and petitioner no. 2 is the cousin brother of the petitioner no. 1. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioners were identified in video captured in CCTV footage.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioners surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T