Anil Sah And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.34818 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -129 Year- 2013 Thana -SHEOHAR District- SHEOHAR ====================================================== 1.Anil Sah
2. Uma Shankar Sah, both sons of Sakaldeo Sah, residents of villageDhanhara, P.S. Sheyampur Bhatahan, District-Sheohar .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-04-2015 Heard Dr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Sheohar P.S. Case No.129 of 2013 under section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that his son was killed and Pappu Ram disclosed that petitioners Anil Sah and Uma Shankar Sah along with others made indiscriminate firing , killing Rajesh Ram on the spot.
It is submitted that prior to lodging of this F.I.R., petitioner no.1 Anil Sah filed a case against Rajesh Ram and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34818 of 2014 (3) dt.06-04-2015 2 / 2 others bearing Sheyampur Bhatahan P.S. Case No. 67 of 2013 dated 14-7-2013. There is enmity. Pappu Ram happens to be the brother-in-law of the deceased, and he was not having good relation with the deceased. It is further submitted that Dy. S.P. supervised the case and stated that on mere accusation by Pappu Ram, the case appears to be doubtful.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that Pappu Ram is an eye-witness of the occurrence and the S.P. has differed with the supervision note of Dy.S.P.
It appears that Pappu Ram has made specific allegation that he saw the petitioners and others making indiscriminate firing causing the death of Rajesh Ram on the spot.
Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. B.Roy/- (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) U T