Ramashankar Rai @ Mangal Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62271 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-428 Year-2021 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Ramashankar Rai @ Mangal Rai S/O Lal Babu Rai @ Lal Babu Ray Resident of Village- Ghanshyampur, Dharharwa Urf Parn Dharharwa, Runnisaidpur, P.S.- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-04-2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. The accused/petitioner is not named in F.I.R. and apprehended his arrest in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 428 of 2021 G.R. No. 3082 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and Section 27 of Arms Act. As per F.I.R., two named co-accused persons along with four unknown persons committed the murder of husband of informant due to previous enmities by opening indiscriminate

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62271 of 2022(5) dt.24-04-2023 2/3 firing.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not the same Mangal Rai, who is alleged by the prosecutions to be involved in present crime in question. It is further submitted that the occurrence is of village- Tharar, whereas petitioner is the resident of villageGhanshyampur. It is submitted that the name of petitioner first time surfaced in para 14 during the course of investigation out of previous enmities. It is also submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and nothing surfaced during the course of investigation, as now, which may suggest involvement of petitioner.

Learned APP, while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that wife of the informant and witness Kanchan Devi while recording their statement in para 14 and 15 of the case diary specifically named this petitioner to drive motorcycle, rider of which opened indiscriminate firing causing death of husband of informant, who appears to be an eye witness of the occurrence. It is further submitted that their statement clearly suggest active participation of petitioner, where investigation of this case is yet to complete.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62271 of 2022(5) dt.24-04-2023 3/3 by taking note of the active participation of petitioner as appears during the course of investigation, as per version of eye witnesses of the occurrence, the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected herewith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Archana/- U T