Bachchu Rai @ Bachhu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1188 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2021 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

BACHCHU RAI @ BACHHU KUMAR SON OF BINDESHWAR RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAMPUR DUMARI, P.S- GORAUL (KATHARA O.P), DIST- VAISHALI 2.

LAL BABU RAI SON OF BINDESHWAR RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAMPUR DUMARI, P.S- GORAUL (KATHARA O.P), DISTVAISHALI 3.

RAKESH RAI SON OF BINDESHWAR RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGERAMPUR DUMARI, P.S- GORAUL (KATHARA O.P), DIST- VAISHALI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rina Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-08-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of this anticipatory bail application, petitioner nos 1 and 2 have been arrested and, as such, the same has become infructuous. He, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw this application as against petitioner nos. 1 and 2.

In view of the aforesaid submission, the application is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1188 of 2022(2) dt.03-08-2022 2/3 dismissed as withdrawn as having become infructuous as against petitioner nos. 1 and 2.

Petitioner no. 3 apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Goraul P.S. (Kathara O.P.)Case No. 194 of 2021.

The informant is the wife of Nagina Sahni (deceased). As per allegation, the accused persons named in the FIR including the petitioners called the deceased for fishing. The husband of the informant went with them and the accused persons committed murder of her husband by drowning him in a pond.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased Nagina Sahni was fishing in the night stealthily. He drowned and died. The entire allegation against the petitioners is false.

Petitioners no.3 is named in the FIR. There is specific allegation against him that he along with others killed the husband of the informant by drowning him in the pond. The investigation is still continuing. As such, the petitioner no.3 does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. His prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1188 of 2022(2) dt.03-08-2022 3/3 Office shall ensure that all the defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T