Satish Rai @ Satish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56568 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2019 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== SATISH RAI @ SATISH KUMAR Son of Raj Kumar Rai R/V- Sukumarpur, P.S- Raghopur, Dist- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kameshwar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 326, 354, 307, 302, 201, 504, 506, 120(B) of the IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution case, one person, Nazir was shot dead while two persons namely, Chanirak Rai and Putul rai were also killed by slitting them into pieces by the accused persons and the dead bodies were thrown in the river. Altogether 21 persons are named in the FIR including this petitioner It is submitted that though petitioner is named in the FIR, but there is general and omnibus allegation. No specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner. Similarly

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56568 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2023 2/2 situated co-accused Indradeo Rai has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hob'ble Court vide order dated 10.12.2020. Petitioner has been dragged in this case only due to previous enmity.

However, counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that from bare perusal of the FIR it is apperrant that this petitioner is one of the assailants of the deceased Chanarik Rai and Putul Rai whereas there is no specific allegation against co-accused Indradeo Rai who has been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court.

Considering the fact that petitioner is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation that he was one of the assailants of both the deceased namely Chanarik Rai and Putul Rai, prayer for bail of the petitioner is refused with direction to the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail, which would be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) asmit/- U T