Rajeev Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43320 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2020 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

RAJEEV KUMAR @ RAJIV KUMAR Son of Sarwesh Ray @ Sarvesh Rai Bishunpur Saidali, Maniarpur, Vaishali, Bihar - 844504. 2.

Mamta Devi Wife of Sanjay Ray Naya Tola, Nayagaon Urf Mohammadpur Muradpur, Vaishali, Bihar - 844506.

3.

Amla Devi Wife of Sarwesh Ray @ Sarvesh Rai Bishanpur Saidali, Vaishali, Bihar - 844504.

4.

Sarwesh Ray @ Sarvesh Rai Son of Devki Ray Bishanpur Saidali, Maniarpur, Vaishali, Bihar - 844504.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Shanu For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove the defects within four weeks.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No.130 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Allegedly, the dead body of the son of the informant was recovered from the Ganga river near Pippapool Vishanpur Ghat.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43320 of 2022(3) dt.05-12-2022 2/2 The allegation against the petitioners under conspiracy with each others have killed the son of the informant and threw his dead body in a river.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. He further submits that the petitioners are the in-laws and wife of the deceased. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners. There is no eye-witness in the present case to support the prosecution case. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners are also involved in the present case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected. This application is accordingly dismissed.

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