Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48394/2023rejected

Ratan Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2023-09-06Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48394 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2022 Thana- KUSHESHWARASTHAN DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== RATAN SHARMA SON OF HARERAM SHARMA @ HARERAM MISHTRI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HARINAGAR, PSKUSHESHWARASTHAN, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Girish Chandra Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 06-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Some unknown person killed the husband of the informant and the dead body has been recovered from a ditch.

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 FIR. He submitted that there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. On the basis of suspicion, he has been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48394 of 2023(3) dt.06-09-2023 2/2 05.02.2022.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that during investigation, several independent witnesses have stated that the deceased was last seen with the petitioner, this fact has come in vide paras- 7, 8, 9, 10 of the case diary. He further submitted that the petitioner confessed his guilt of the alleged occurrence, which is mentioned in para-27 of the case diary and the postmortem report has also corroborated the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

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

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U