Rajesh Bari And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9219 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -305 Year- 2015 Thana -GOPALGANJ CITY District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================
1. Rajesh Bari,
2. Jitendra Bari, Both sons of Bharosa Bari, Residents of Village- Arar, P.S. Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Pd.Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 06-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners are accused in connection with Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No. 305 of 2015, registered under Sections 302, 324, 307 and 504/34 of Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj.
The allegation of informant, namely, Nitish Kumar is that the petitioners and other named accused persons came and started abusing the informant and his father, who were irrigating the land. Thereafter, informant and his father ran to their house, but all the four persons named in the F.I.R. chased the informant and his father, thereafter co-accused Parmanand Bari caught the father of the informant and co-accused Dhananjay Bari gave knife blow on his stomach, whereas these petitioners also caused injury through knife.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9219 of 2016 (2) dt.06-04-2016 2/2 Thereafter, deceased died in course of treatment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners are in custody since 14.09.2015 Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioners and others to cause injury to the deceased and in post-mortem four injuries were found on the person of the deceased. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners, above named, is hereby rejected (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T