Manoj Sah @ Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.142 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2021 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Manoj Sah @ Manoj Kumar Son of Ramkumar Sah Resident of VillageBharkuia (Bhadkuiya), Ward No. 06, Police Station- Barauli, District - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 08-12-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Barauli P.S. Case No. 214 of 2021 lodged under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, the informant has disclosed that on 15.07.2021, 5 named and 8-10 unknown persons has reached on the shop of informant's husband and started teasing him and subsequently assaulted him by lathi, iron rod, etc. They all brutally assaulted the informant's husband due to which he faint there. The informant immediately rushed for his treatment but after few days i.e. 26.07.2021 husband of the informant died thereafter, the present case has been filed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.142 of 2022(3) dt.08-12-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned counsel submits that the date of occurrence is 15.07.2021 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 27.07.2021 that is after death of her husband. Learned counsel further submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 27.07.2021. Charge sheet has already been filed in this case. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case of Section 302 of the I.P.C. and framing of charge is necessary.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge and Trial Court is directed to release him on bail thereafter imposing its own condition so that he may not evade his appearance during trial.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) prakashmani/- U T