Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47666 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2023 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI MUKHIYA SON OF INDRAJEET MUKHIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAJI BUZURG, P.S. - SAKRA, DISTRICT - MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chandrasekhar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 07-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sakra (Bariarpur O.P.) P.S. Case No.158 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC.

3.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused have killed the husband of the informant. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Though, it is alleged that the dead body has been recovered from the premises of the petitioner but the independent witnesses in para 27 and 47 have stated that they

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47666 of 2024(2) dt.07-08-2024 2/2 saw the dead body lying at the door of petitioner and the petitioner has not been apprehended from the spot. There is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 08.02.2024. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioner. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T