Pappu Rai @ Pappu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2578 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- SAHIYARA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.
Pappu Rai @ Pappu Kumar son of Suresh Rai Resident Of VillagePataniya, Ps -Riga, Dist -Sitamarhi 2.
Ranjit Rai @ Ranjit Kumar son of Suresh Rai Resident Of Village- Pataniya, Ps -Riga, Dist -Sitamarhi ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Fulo Devi Wife of Late Manoj Paswan Village- Shahpur, Ps- Sahiyara, DistSitamarhi ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special P.P. for of the State.
2. This appeal has been filed against order dated 02.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitamarhi in a case registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 103(1), 61(2) and 238 of the B.N.S., 2023, Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and Section 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of appellants has been rejected.
3. As per F.I.R., on 01.01.2025 at about 6 PM, appellants and other co-accused persons, named in the FIR, took
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2578 of 2025(2) dt.28-08-2025 2/2 away husband of informant for celebrating picnic and committed his murder.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Informant is not eye-witness to the occurrence and only suspicion has been raised against appellants and others.
5. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that appellants are named in the F.I.R. with specific allegation that these appellants alongwith other co-accused took away husband of informant and thereafter, his dead-body was recovered. Appellants were last seen with the deceased.
6. Considering the same, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T