Ramu Sahni @ Ramu Kumar Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47231 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2021 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== RAMU SAHNI @ RAMU KUMAR SAHNI S/o Suresh Sahni Resident of Village- Jakarpura, P.S.- Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 21-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Suryagarha P.S. Case no. 54 of 2021 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, co-accused Suresh Sahni had taken away the husband of the informant from his h ouse and thereafter, several accused persons including the petitioner have killed the husband of the informant by pressing his neck. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47231 of 2021(4) dt.21-07-2022 2/2 alleged occurrence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Only with a purpose to save the skin from an earlier case (Suryagarha P.S. Case No. 216 of 2015) the present case has been registered against he petitioner.

Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP appearing for the State have opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that there is sufficient material against the petitioner mentioned in para 3, 6, 16, 17 and 32 of the case diary. The informant has supported the prosecution story. The witnesses have stated they had seen the petitioner fleeing away from the other side of Kiul river. In para 32 of the case diary, police official during course of supervison found the case true against the petitioner. It reveals from the postmortem report that deceased had died due to throttling.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is serious allegation of killing against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U