Sogarath Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63268 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2023 Thana- HARLAKHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Sogarath Sah S/o- Ramashis Sah Resident of Village- Raima Police StationSaharghat, Dist- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr .Bhavesh Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Dilip Kr. No.1, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Randhir Kumar No.1, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 07-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kr. No. 1, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Harlakhi P.S. Case No.198 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 302, 201 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. 3.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons, hired some criminals in order to get her daughter-in-law killed.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons but during the course of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63268 of 2024(5) dt.07-03-2025 2/2 investigation one person was apprehended by the police and he disclosed that the petitioner and others have hired him to kill the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. He further submits that earlier the deceased had filed a case u/s 498A against her husband and others, and the husband of the deceased took her to her matrimonial home from the court below itself. No incriminating article was recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 109 of the case diary.

5.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is involved in the present case.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) priyanka/- U T