Nischay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54550 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2024 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ====================================================== Nischay Singh son of Manoj Kumar Village- Khairuganj W.No-31, Janta Chauk Ps- Sadar Dist- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-01-2025 Heard Mr. N.K.Agrwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Informant is not eye-witness to the occurrence and only on suspicion petitioner has been made accused. He next submits that the date of occurrence is 15.02.2024 (night), whereas F.I.R. has been lodged on 23.02.2024 and there is no explanation of delay. As a matter of fact, the informant herself brought the dead-body of her son from the hospital after getting permission from the hospital administration and as such, post-mortem could not be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54550 of 2024(4) dt.20-01-2025 2/2 conducted and cause of death could not be ascertained. informant's son (deceased) was a drug-addict, for which, he was admitted in rehabilitation centre. At the time of admission in the rehabilitation centre, the informant has filled up the consent form and signed on the consent form where it was clearly mentioned son of informant was a high risk patient and the centre has no emergency medical facility and for any untoward incident, the centre cannot be held responsible and on agreement of said terms, the informant got admitted her son.

4. However, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is specific allegation against petitioner that he was incharge of the rehabilitation centre and during course of the investigation, one of the inmates has categorically stated that this petitioner alongwith others brutally assaulted son of informant and thereafter, took him away to some other place on a 4-wheeler.

5. Considering the nature of accusation, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T