Ranjan Bind v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41254 of 2017 (3) dt.04-10-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41254 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -40 Year- 2016 Thana -DHARHARA District- MUNGER ======================================================

1. Ranjan Bind Son of Late Giro Bind @ Giradhari Bind, Resident of Village- Sardlapur Amari, Police Station- Dharhara, District- Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akbar Ali ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of regular bail, arises out of Dharhara Police Station Case No. 40 of 2016 given rise to S.T. No. 56 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner and no specific overt act is attributed to him. In fact, the petitioner has been made accused in this case on confession before the police, which has no evidentiary value. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Charges in this case have

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41254 of 2017 (3) dt.04-10-2017 already been framed and there is no allegation of tampering with the evidences against the petitioner. The petitioner is rotting in custody for the 22.04.2016.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there was love affair between the petitioner and the wife of the deceased and he has committed committed murder of the deceased. Witnesses have also supported the prosecution version which is evident from paragraph Nos. 5, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 35 and 50 of the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after three months.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T