Bhushan Mahra @ Bhushna Ram And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.73895 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-454 Year-2018 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani ======================================================

1. Bhushan Mahra @ Bhushna Ram, Son of Bisheshwar Mahra

2. Satiya Devi Wife of Parishan Mahra

3. Binita Devi @ Babita Devi wife of Raushan Mahra All R/o Khairamara,P..S. Jaynagar,Distt.-Madhunani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Soban Asghar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 454 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case of the prosecution as per written information is that daughter of the informant Punam Devi was married with Raushan Mahra, who solemnized the second marriage with petitioner no.3 Binita Devi and on 10.08.2018, the informant received information that dead body of a female child is lying in the sugarcane crop of Shiv Shankar Yadav and when she went there and found that the dead body is of her grand daughter Soni Kumari, daughter of Punam Devi aged about one year and there was injury on her neck and found that the house of Roshan Mahra was locked and all accused persons have fled away after

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.73895 of 2018(3) dt.29-01-2019 2/2 causing murder of daughter of the informant by throttling in the night.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no specific allegation has been attributed against them and they are falsely been implicated in this case. Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stating that they are the family members and the house was found just after the place of occurrence and death is due to throttling.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, rather they should surrender and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered on its own merit, without being prejudice by order of this Court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Amjad/- U T