Md. Safik Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45502 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2024 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Md. Safik Ansari Son Of Md. Jakir Ansari R/V- Gangwalia Ps- Kudra Dist -Kaimur ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ramakant Ram, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 366, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, the daughter of the informant could not return from the examination center. Accordingly, the F.I.R.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. On the basis of suspicion, the name of the petitioner figured in this case. Petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45502 of 2024(4) dt.01-10-2024 2/2 is a person of clean antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 09.03.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for bail and submitted that during course of investigation, the name of the petitioner has figured in this case. They submitted that from tower location, it was detected that the daughter of the informant was in constant touch with the petitioner. They also submitted that C.D.R. was obtained which shows that soon before her death, there were conversation between the petitioner and the deceased. On the basis of C.D.R. the petitioner was arrested and he has given his vivid description about the alleged occurrence and on his disclosure the dead body was recovered. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Arish/- U T