Raman Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56145 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2019 Thana- JALALPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Raman Singh Son of Sri Satyendra Singh Resident of Village-Belkunda, P.S.- Jalalpur, District-Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Udit Narayan Singh with Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocates For the State :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Jalalpur PS Case No. 110 of 2019 dated 29.06.2019 instituted under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner, who is the husband of the Mukhiya of Bishunpura Panchayat, is of killing the father of the informant, who was the Panchayat Secretary of Bishunpura and Rampur Panchayats.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except for suspicion, there is no material against him. It was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56145 of 2019 dt.18-12-2019 2/2 submitted that a meeting was called of various Panchayat Secretaries, including the father of the informant, who has gone missing. It was submitted that nobody has seen where the father of the informant has gone as neither he returned nor any body recovered. It was submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 08.07.2019.

5. Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant, from the case diary, submitted that the meeting was held at the house of the petitioner and he is also the husband of one of the Mukhiyas. It was submitted that the CCTV footage shows that the deceased had gone to the house of the petitioner but was not seen coming out and, thus, the petitioner cannot plead innocence as there is no explanation as to how the deceased never came out of the house of the petitioner.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U T