Patna High CourtCR. MISC./72002/2024bail rejected

Kamlesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-03Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72002 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2024 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya ====================================================== Kamlesh Paswan Son of Late Ram Pukar Paswan R/O Vill. and P.S.- Konch, Dist.- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 03-10-2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 165 of 2024, lodged on 13.04.2024, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, it has been alleged that the son has demanded money from his father when he has not provided money the petitioner attacked on his father due to which his father became brutally injured and subsequently died.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the present FIR has been lodged at the instance of brotherin-law. He is in greed of taking property. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is absolutely a false case and signature

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72002 of 2024(2) dt.03-10-2024 2/2 has been obtained forcefully from the informant. Counsel further submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 24.05.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation made in the FIR is specific and clear.

6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail three months after framing of the charge.

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