Radhe Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 49832 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-355 Year-2020 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== 1.

Radhe Ram, aged about 58 years, Male son of Late Bihari Ram. 2.

Amola Devi, aged about 54 years, Female Wife of Radhe Ram. 3.

Vikash Ram, aged about 35 years, Male Son of Radhe Ram. 4.

Pinki Devi, aged about 27 years, Female, wife of Vikash Ram. 5.

Bimlesh Ram @ Rakesh Ram, aged about 22 years, Male Son of Radhe Ram 6.

Pinki Devi, aged about 27 years, Female Wife of Bimlesh Ram @ Rakesh Ram.

All are resident of Village - Madhopur, P.S. - Samastipur Muffasil, District - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Surya Narayan Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2022 Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 3 has been arrested, so he wants to withdraw this application against petitioner no. 3.

Permission is granted.

The application of petitioner no. 3 stands dismissed as withdrawn and are restricted to petitioners no. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 respectively.

The petitioners no. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 seek bail in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49832 of 2021(2) dt.15-02-2022 2/2 anticipation of their arrest in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 355 of 2020 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations and that the petitioners are actively involved in a case where young women was alleged to have been murdered and thereafter her body has also been destroyed without informing any of her family members, the allegations made by the informant seems to be correct and true.

In view thereof, prima facie no case for anticipatory bail is made out, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners no. 1,2,4, 5, and 6.

This application is dismissed.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Anand Kr.

U T