Subodh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23168 of 2018 (3) dt.17-05-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23168 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -379 Year- 2017 Thana -FATEHPUR District- GAYA ======================================================
1. Subodh Paswan S/o Bhuneshur Paswan, R/o Vill.- Paharpur, P.S.- Fatehpur, Distt.- Gaya.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2018 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Fatehpur P.S. Case No.379 of 2017 registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that the petitioner and others in collusion with Ranju Devi killed his son, Vikash Kumar who was living at the house of his sister in village Paharpur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. The dead body of the deceased was found on the railway track. Ranju Devi and other brought the dead body from the railway track and kept the same in the house. It is quite improbable that a person who killed the boy brought the dead body from railway track but from perusal of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23168 of 2018 (3) dt.17-05-2018 case diary, it appears that the petitioner had illicit relation with Ranju Devi who happens to be cousin(maternal sister) of Sonu Kumar, the brother-in-law of the deceased. Ranju Devi came to the house of Sonu Kumar to prepare food for Sonu Kumar and other family members but she developed illicit relation with the petitioner. Saloni, five years daughter of Ranju Devi made her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she disclosed the entire story how Vikash Kumar was killed by Ranju Devi and the petitioner and others and his dead body was thrown at the railway track.
Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T