Rajesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57594 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2020 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Rajesh Paswan Son Of Birendra Paswan R/O Basantpur, P.S.- Muffasil, District- East Champaran.

2.

Brajesh Paswan Son Of Birendra Paswan R/O Basantpur, P.S.- Muffasil, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 25-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.218 of 2020 instituted under Sections 341,326,307,354/34 of the IPC and 302 of the IPC. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the accused persons pour wine on the body of the girl and put her on fire. She was taken for treatment to the Sadar Hospital, Motihari where she succumbed to the burn injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR and further immediately after the occurrence, the girl was not shifted to the hospital, rather she was taken the next day and she died during treatment

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57594 of 2022(2) dt.25-01-2023 2/2 after one month. The last submission is that the petitioner do not have criminal antecedent.

Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand submits that not only there is allegation against them of pouring wine on the girl and subsequently put her on fire, the girl also in course of treatment narrated the story and named these petitioners, amongst other.

Taking into account the aforesaid allegation, so far as the anticipatory bail is concerned, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to extend the same upon the petitioners, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T