Babul Kumar Mahto @ Babul Kumar @ Kanha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65287 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2022 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Babul Kumar Mahto @ Babul Kumar @ Kanha S/o Chulhai Mahto R/vBasauli Tola Ramchandra, P.S.- Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 16-02-2023 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.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kudhani P.S. Case No. 222 of 2022 lodged under Sections 302/ 34 of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the petitioner was in illicit relation with his elder daughterin-law and it has been alleged that elder daughter-in-law in connivance with the petitioner had killed his elder son Arun Kumar. It has also been alleged that threatening was also given by the petitioner to the informant in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65287 of 2022(2) dt.16-02-2023 2/2 the content of F.I.R., it is very much clear that there is no eye witness of this offence and the entire case has been lodged on the basis of suspicion only. Counsel further submits that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and he is in custody since 10.05.2022.

Upon specific query whether charge has been framed or not, counsel is unaware about the charge frame. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

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. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

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