Raja Mandal @ Raja Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3420 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2020 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.

Raja Mandal @ Raja Kumar S/O Brahmadev Mandal Resident Of VillageChapki Terhia, P.S.-RAGHOPUR, District-Supaul 2.

Nitish Kumar S/O Lal Mohan Mandal Resident Of Village-Navtol, Thumha, Ward No.6, P.S.-pipra, District-Supaul.

3.

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Mandal S/O Arun Mandal Resident Of Village-Navtol, Thumha, Ward No.6, P.S.-pipra, District-Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 04-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant case for depositing the requisite court fee and to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation against the petitioners is of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3420 of 2021(3) dt.04-01-2022 2/2 killing the son of the informant by assaulting with bat, balla and lathi along with other accused persons. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and even if the whole prosecution case is presumed to be true then who has given fatal blow on vital part of the body of the deceased is not clear.

From perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that the witnesses in paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 have supported the prosecution version and the implication of the petitioners. The postmortem report also corroborates the prosecution version.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shageer/- U T