Sheo Balak Rai And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26791 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -129 Year- 2014 Thana -RAJPUR DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Sheo Balak Rai son of Late Ramavatar Rai

2. Sumitra Devi wife of Sheo Balak Rai Both resident of VillageBalbhadrapur, Police Station- Rajepur, District- East Champaran.

3. Kamaljeet Devi @ Kamaljeet Singh wife of Kabindra Rai, resident of Village- Sobhitapur, Police Station- Rajepur, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Pd. Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr.Ajit Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in Rajepur P.S.Case no. 129/2014 instituted under Sections 364 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Motihari, East Champaran.

It is alleged by the informant that his second son, namely, Kavindra Rai was married with Kamaljeet Devi daughter of Sheo Balak Rai in the year 2009. It is further alleged that his daughter-in-law was living at her maternal house since three months. Thereafter she called her husband to come to Muzaffarpur for treatment of Kamaljeet Devi. On 10.10.2014 Kavindra went to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26791 of 2015 (3) dt.24-09-2015 2/2 Muzaffarpur and never returned back to his house. On enquiry from Kamalajeet Devi about Kavindra Rai she said that I have no information and knowledge about Kavindra Rai. The informant has raised suspicion against Sheo Balak Rai, Yashoda Devi, Sumitra Devi and Kamaljeet Devi about their involvement and commit the murder of the son of the informant. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no direct or indirect evidence except for suspicion against the petitioners. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are ladies. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the victim has not yet been recovered and is still traceless. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and same is rejected. Any how, if the petitioners surrender in the court below and pray for regular bail, same shall be considered by the court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Sudhir Singh, J) singh/- U T