Prem Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57242 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2018 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== PREM RAJ, Son of Lal Babu Prasad, Resident of Village-Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, P.S.-Patrakarnagar, District-Patna, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2019 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ramkrishna Nagar P.S.Case No. 298 of 2018 registered under Sections 120B, 201, 302 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner, as per FIR, is that on the date of occurrence i.e., on 09.08.2018, the deceased Uttam Kumar asked the informant to accompany him to 90 Ft. Road situated at Patna to bring a sum of Rs. 5 lacs which was due from Manish Kumar and also to take a Alto Car from him which was lying with said Manish Kumar. It has further been alleged that Manish Kumar along with other accused persons including the petitioner took the deceased Uttam Kumar at Jaganpura and to some other place and in the meanwhile, one person i.e., Anish Kumar along with three persons remained with the informant who assaulted the informant with dagger with an intention to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57242 of 2019(3) dt.12-09-2019 2/2 kill him and in the meanwhile one person received a call and the informant over heard that caller said that Uttam Kumar has been killed and he exhorted that person to kill the informant also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and there is no material to connect the petitioner with this offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at best the petitioner was last seen with the deceased and except that there is no material or injury report or the postmortem report has been brought on record by the prosecution.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is named accused and informant has stated that deceased was taken to some other place by the petitioner and other accused persons, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as such the same is rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sujit/- U T