Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Sada v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61313 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-354 Year-2020 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== 1.

Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Sada Son of - Ramladu Sada Resident of Village - Karanpur, P.S. - Bakhari, District - Begusarai. 2.

Rukesh Sada @ Rupesh Sada Son of - Ramladu Sada Resident of Village - Karanpur, P.S. - Bakhari, District - Begusarai. 3.

Chandan Sada Son of - Bhojal Sada Resident of Village - Karanpur, P.S. - Bakhari, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pritish Kumar Lal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 31-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioners seek bail in Bakhari P.S. Case No. 354 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, seven FIR named accused persons including these petitioners committed murder of informant's son and his nephew and threw their dead body in Chandrabhaga river. The occurrence took place due to love affair between the son of informant (deceased) and co-accused Sangita Kumari.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61313 of 2021(3) dt.31-03-2022 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and petitioners have been made accused in this merely on suspicion. There is no material in the entire case diary which shows complicity of petitioners in the alleged occurrence. Petitioner no. 1 is brother-in-law of coaccused Sangita Kumari whereas, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have got no link with the family of Sangita Kumari. Petitioners are in custody since 02.09.2020 having no criminal antecedent. Counsel for informant however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that on the disclosure of petitioners mobile phones of the deceased were recovered. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T