Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57597/2023bail rejected

Gopi Kumar @ Gopi Sada v. The State Of Bihar

2023-11-09Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57597 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-215 Year-2023 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

GOPI KUMAR @ GOPI SADA son of Pavitar Sada @ Pavitra Sada Village- Kalyanpur Chowk PS- Kalyanpur Dist- Samastipur 2.

Aklu Sada @ Hakru Sada son of Late Bhola Sada Village- Kalyanpur Chowk PS- Kalyanpur Dist- Samastipur 3.

Suresh Sada son of Aklu Sada Village- Kalyanpur Chowk Ps- Kalyanpur Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-11-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case no. 215 of 2023 registered under sections 302, 307, 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that while the marriage of his daughter was taking place, the nine named accused persons including the three petitioners herein are said to have forcibly entered into the Barat, started to dance and on protest by the informant, they are said to have abused and assaulted the father of the informant with brick,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57597 of 2023(3) dt.09-11-2023 2/2 stone etc. leading to his death.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. No occurrence as alleged in the FIR has taken place. The petitioners are in custody since 15.7.2023 and 18.7.2023 respectively. They have no criminal antecedent and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

5. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioners in the FIR, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail after completing one year in custody or after framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U