Md. Vikki Quraishi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70715 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-328 Year-2023 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar ====================================================== Md. Vikki Quraishi Son Of Md. Gafoor @ Md. Gafoor Kuraishi Resident Of Village - Salamat Nagar, P.S. - Katihar, District - Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nafisuzzoha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 19-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Nagar Katihar P.S. case No. 328 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the petitioner along with wife of the deceased killed the brother of the informant namely, Pawan Sharma by pressing his neck.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The informant is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 05.05.2023.

Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70715 of 2023(3) dt.19-01-2024 2/2 prayer of regular bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific allegation of murder of the informant's brother Pawan Sharm against him. During investigation in para 19 and 20 of the case diary two daughters of the deceased namely, Mayuri Sharma and Bharti Sharma respectively have supported the prosecution case and stated about the complicity of the petitioner. They themselves stated that they are the eye witness of the incident. In para 15 of the case diary, the petitioner has also confessed his guilt in his confessional statement in respect of commission of murder the informant's brother.

Further, the postmortem report of the deceased corroborates the prosecution case in which doctor opined that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of throttling. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against this petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T