Brajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57915 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-680 Year-2020 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== BRAJESH KUMAR Son of Chandra Bhushan Singh Resident of Village - Mahmadpur Shivram, P.S. - Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sakra P.S. Case No. 680 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-XII (East) Muzaffarpur. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57915 of 2021(2) dt.30-06-2022 2/2 the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that petitioner neither forcefully got seated Ganesh Kumar nor he threw the dead body of deceased from the dicky of the car. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that from perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner was directly involved in the aforesaid crime and there is direct allegation against him. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T