Ram Chandra Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74284 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2023 Thana- SINDHIYA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Ram Chandra Ram S/o Late Bhola Ram R/o vill - Milki, P.S. - singhiya, Distt. - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad For the Opposite Party/ :

Mr. Ajit Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2.

The petitioner is seeking for bail in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No.254 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

As per the FIR, after death of one Ashok Ram, husband of the informant's daughter, all the accused persons including the petitioner, in furtherance of their common intention are alleged to have committed the murder of the daughter of informant. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74284 of 2024(2) dt.13-12-2024 2/2 Court vide orders dated 14.08.2024 and 10.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.55327 of 2024 and Cr. Misc. No.81296 of 2023, respectively. Petitioner is the father-in-law of the deceased and there is no specific overt act against him. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been in jail since 30.08.2024. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

8.

However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer of bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T