Anjan Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1240 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2021 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

ANJAN PASWAN Son of Bahadurpur Paswan Resident of Village - Sultanpur, P.S. - Danapur, District - Patna.

2.

Pratap Paswan Son of Late Rajeshwar Paswan Resident of Village - Sultanpur, P.S. - Danapur, District - Patna.

3.

Bajrangi Kumar Son of Suraj Paswan Resident of Village - Faridpur, Patut, P.S.- Bikram, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Munni Kumar Moon For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the complainant.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 364 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Danapur P.S.Case No. 356 of 2021.

As per allegation, the younger brother of the informant went out of his house on 16.05.2022, but he did not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1240 of 2022(2) dt.04-08-2022 2/2 return. The further allegation is that the accused persons including the petitioners had threatened the informant to kill his brother. The reason behind the occurrence is that the wife of petitioner no.1 had taken Rs. 50,000/- on credit from the brother of the informant. The informant expressed his firm belief that the accused persons had concealed the dead-body of his brother after killing him.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present case has only been lodged on the basis of suspicion and except suspicion, there is nothing against the petitioners.

The investigation is still going on, as such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

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