Rampravesh Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39872 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2024 Thana- DARPA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Rampravesh Sah Son of Nakchhed Sah Resident of Village- Pipra Purbari Tola, P.S- Darpa, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Darpa P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on the alleged date, the daughter of the informant went missing. Next day, the dead body of the informant's daughter was found lying in fields.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of disclosure made by local people on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is the informant of the present case and merely on the basis of suspicion he has been dragged in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39872 of 2024(4) dt.04-12-2024 2/2 case. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 24.02.2024 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that as per paragraph no. 27 of the case diary, the villagers disclosed that this petitioner committed the murder of his daughter. Learned counsel further contended that even in paragraph no. 36, petitioner himself confessed his guilt that he has committed the murder of his daughter by pressing her neck and the said fact is also corroborated by the post-mortem report.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the confessional statement of the petitioner as per paragraph no. 36 of the case diary which is corroborated by the post-mortem report of the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail is rejected. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T