Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54505/2016rejected

Babloo Sah @ Indrajeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-04-26Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54505 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -351 Year- 2016 Thana -DALSINGHSARAI District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Babloo Sah @ Indrajeet Kumar, Son of Late Ramgati Sah, Resident of Village- Murlidhar Kuan, Bhagwanpur, Chaksepur, P.S.- Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 26-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 351 of 2016 registered under Sections 394, 302 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner has been figured in this case on the confessional statement of co-accused Golden Kumar. It is also submitted there is land dispute between the deceased and his gotia. Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel appearing

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54505 of 2016 (7) dt.26-04-2017 2/2 on behalf of the informant vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner with submission that this is a case of cold blooded murder, in which co-accused Golden Kumar confessed his guilt showing the involvement of the petitioner having hand in the murder of the deceased. Further submission is that on perusal of several paragraphs of the case diary, in course of investigation, there is sufficient material against the petitioner and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. have been issued against the petitioner. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Shailendra/- U T