Kapildeo Sao v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49610 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -263 Year- 2016 Thana -JAMUI District- JAMUI ====================================================== Kapildeo Sao Meghan Sao Village- Chhathu Dhanama, P.S.- and DistrictJamui. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 09-12-2016 Heard Mr. Neeraj Kr. Sinha for the petitioner, counsel for the informant as well as Mr. Dayal, learned APP for the State. The petitioner prays for bail in Jamui P.S. Case No. 263 of 2016 registered under section 302/34 IPC.

The petitioner along with six others are named in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased. The allegation is that the co-accused Subal Yadav, on the relevant date and time, took the son of the informant and thereafter he heard a Hulla and followed them only to find that the petitioner along with others were brutally assaulting his son as a result whereof he succumbed to his injuries.

The contention of the petitioner is that the informant has wrongly claimed himself as an eye-witness. In course of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49610 of 2016 (2) dt.09-12-2016 2/2 investigation, different story has come up which provides the motive of the occurrence and the post mortem report does not wholly corroborates the prosecution case. It is also highlighted that the doctor in his opinion has not recorded as to the nature of the weapon used to assault the victim/deceased. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2016. Counsel for the State as well as the informant, on the other hand, submitted with reference to the FIR as well as the impugned order that the deceased was done to death by the accused persons named in the FIR in a very brutal manner. The doctor found several injuries on the person of the deceased. Looking to the manner in which the occurrence has been committed and other materials reflected from the records, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Prayer is accordingly rejected.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U T