Mukesh Paswan And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38144 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -66 Year- 2018 Thana -JOGBANI District- ARARIA ======================================================
1. Mukesh Paswan, Son of Maulu Paswan @ Molu Paswan,
2. Sushila Devi, Wife of Maulu Paswan @ Molu Paswan, Both resident of Village- Uttar Maheshwari, Ward No 16, P.S. Jogbani, District- Araria .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are in custody since 22.03.2018 in connection with Jogbani P.S. Case No.66 of 2018 (G.R. No.698/2018) registered for the offence under Sections 363, 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of the learned A.C.J.M.- 1st, Araria. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that save and except the suspicion, there is no further material to implicate the present petitioners. It is further submitted that these two petitioners have been falsely implicated on account of the fact that they have not co-operated in the search, which was
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38144 of 2018 (3) dt.01-08-2018 2/2 going on for recovery of the baby boy aged five years. Diary in the present case was called for, which has since been received.
Learned counsel for the State submits that both the petitioners had been behaving in a peculiar manner and finally the body was recovered from the septic tank near the hut of the petitioners where Mukesh Paswan (Petitioner No.1) was residing. It is submitted that such recovery from the close proximity of the house of the petitioners is the main reason why the petitioners are being prosecuted.
Considering the nature of allegation and the brutal killing of the child and that the recovery was made from the septic tank, which was belonging to the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioners. It is, accordingly, rejected.
However, the trial of the case may be expedited. (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T