Patna High CourtCR. MISC./68108/2018dismissed

Ramnath Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

2019-01-15Mr. Justice S. Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.68108 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2018 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ramnath Sahni Son of Moti Sahni @ Motilal Sahni, Resident of VillageJhitki, Police Station- Kurhani, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sri Tarun Prasad Mandal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant who is the father of deceased has stated in his fardbeyan that his son Sehanshah @ Chandan Kumar aged about 18 years was engaged as cleaner in the Truck of which accused Ram Nath Sahni was the driver. It is alleged that accused Ram Nath Sahni (petitioner) tried to commit unnatural offence with him and on protest being made by the deceased, he inflicted knife blow in the chest of deceased and there are other injuries also found, caused by hard and blunt substance as a result of which he died and was found in the Truck in a naked condition.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68108 of 2018(4) dt.15-01-2019 2/2 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and he himself suffered grievous injury at the hand of deceased for which separate FIR has been registered. It has been further submitted that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 21.04.2018. Chargesheet has already been submitted in this case.

In view of the above, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, it is observed that petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year of jail custody.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- U