Gopi Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28490 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -442 Year- 2015 Thana -MANER District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Gopi Rai Son of Late Kalika Rai, Resident of Village-Kahari Chak, P.S.- Naubatpur, District-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Maner P.S. case No. 442 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 364,201 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that Bachcha Rai and two other persons took his brother, Sonu Rai, to market but his brother did not return. On the next day dead body of his brother was found. The informant further alleged that his brother had purchased a vehicle from Gopi Rai, the petitioner, and his brother had some quarrel with petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of investigation, on mere suspicion, the name of petitioner along with Kariya Rai @ Rajendra Rai, Baiju Rai and Bachcha Rai figured in the case but Bachcha Rai and Baiju Rai have already been granted anticipatory bail. Kariya Rai @ Rajendra Rai has been granted regular bail. The case of petitioner stands on the same footing. Even during the course of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28490 of 2017 (3) dt.19-08-2017 2/2 investigation the witnesses have simply stated that petitioner and other accused persons were found in the company of the deceased in the market and there is no eye witness of the occurrence to show that petitioner killed Sonu Kumar.

It appears that there is no eye witness of the occurrence although the witnesses have stated that petitioner and other accused persons were found in the company of the deceased in the market and thereafter the deceased disappeared and on the next day his dead body was found.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders in the court below, i.e., Sri Randhir Kumar, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Maner P.S. case No. 442 of 2015, the learned court below shall consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner taking into consideration that similarly situated accused Kariya Rai @ Rajendra Rai and others have already been granted bail and dispose of the bail petition, preferably, on the same day. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T