Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8908/2017rejected

Shivnath Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2017-04-26Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8908 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -127 Year- 2016 Thana -RIGA District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Shivnath Sah, Son of Daroga Sah, resident of village - Panapur, P.S. Riga, District - Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 26-04-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Riga P.S. Case No. 127 of 2016, registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

The accusation is that due to quarrel in between Akash Kumar, grandson of Daroga Sah and Golu Kumar nephew of informant Santosh Kumar, on 18.06.2016 Golu Kumar was called by grandson of Daroga Sah and all of a sudden, informant and his uncle heard the sound then they reached near Maharani Asthan and saw that Daroga Sah was sitting there and his sons Jaganath Sah, Baidhnath Sah, Raghunath Sah and Shivnath Sah was causing assault through bricks to Golu Kumar. Thereafter,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8908 of 2017 (4) dt.26-04-2017 2/2 Golu Kumar was rushed at the clinic of Dr. Ravi Bhushan, where he was declared dead.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, Bishwanath Sah one of the sons of Daroga Sah caused injury to Golu Kumar through bricks, thereafter, he died in the hospital but with ulterior motive, the informant has implicated the Jagannath Sah and his other sons, including the petitioner. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T