Ram Kishor Rai @ Kamlu Rai @ Kamal Kishor Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58444 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-607 Year-2020 Thana- MANER District- Patna ====================================================== RAM KISHOR RAI @ KAMLU RAI @ KAMAL KISHOR KUMAR Son of Sri Sirda Rai Resident of Village Brahamchari Pokhara, Police Station - Maner, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravindra Nath Dubey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anita Kumari For the Informant Mr. Rudradeo ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 22-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Maner P.S. Case no. 607 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 448, 307, 302, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, while the informant was sitting at his door, all named accused persons including the petitioner came there having variously armed. They caught hold his brother and thereafter, Kamal Kishore Rai and Upendra Rai assaulted his brother on his head by means of rod and he succumbed to injuries in the way to hospital. It is further alleged that he and his cousin were also assaulted by them and they snatched gold chain and ear-ring of his sister-in-law.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58444 of 2021(3) dt.22-06-2022 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation that the petitioner has assaulted the deceased by iron rod is not supported by the postmortem report.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail.

Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that it appears from perusal of the case diary, that several prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Five injuries were sustained by the deceased out of which 1st three are lacerated wounds on head and injury no. 4 and 5 are fracture on parietal and frontal bone. Doctor has opined the cause of death due to hemorrhage and shock caused by ante mortem injury leading to cardio respiratory failure.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that petitioner was active participant in the alleged crime leading to death of brother of the informant, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U