Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59814 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2015 Thana- GAIGHAT District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== VINAY KUMAR @ VINAY RAI S/o Ramakhayalu Rai R/o villageKumhraul, P.S.- Gaighat, Distt.- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uday Prakash Shrarma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-07-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Gaighat P.S.Case No. 02 of 2015. As per allegation, nine accused persons named in the FIR including the petitioner, dragged away the father of the informant from his verandah. Co-accused Indrajeet Rai ordered to kill the father of the informant, whereupon all those accused persons including the petitioner, assaulted him with lathi, bricks etc. when the family members went to rescue him, the accused persons also assaulted him. The father of the informant died during the course of treatment in the PMCH. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59814 of 2021(2) dt.15-07-2022 2/2 that he is innocent. He has submitted further that the deceased had taken money from co-accused Indrajeet Rai and when Indrajeet Rai demanded money, the prosecution side assaulted the members of the defense side. He has also submitted that the deceased fell down on the ground and he died. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is clear allegation against accused persons including the petitioner that they badly assaulted the deceased. At the order of coaccused Indrajeet Rai sustaining injuries the deceased died in the PMCH in course of treatment.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T