Patna High CourtCR. MISC./194/2015rejected

Sunil Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

2015-03-10Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.194 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -32 Year- 2014 Thana -BOCHHA District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Sunil Sahani son of Nagendra Sahani, Resident of Village- Sarwanichok, P.S.- Bochahan, Dist- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amitesh Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 10-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bochaha P.S. Case No. 32 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he was chasing Devendra Sahni, the brother of the deceased to kill him as he had suspicion that Devendra Sahni had illicit relation with the wife of the petitioner and when the deceased went to rescue his brother the petitioner killed him by knife blow. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant is not the eye witness to the occurrence. The occurrence has taken place on 07.02.2014

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.194 of 2015 (4) dt.10-03-2015 2/2 whereas the statement of Devendra Sahni brother of the deceased had been recorded by the I.O. on 12.02.2014. Had he been present his statement would have been recorded earlier. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has been in custody since 08.02.2014.

Learned counsel for the State submits that on perusal of the case diary it appears that other witnesses who have seen the occurrence have been examined by the I.O. and they have supported the prosecution case. The inquest report also supports the prosecution case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case in my view, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) M.Rahman/- U T