Dipak Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75165 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-323 Year-2023 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna ====================================================== Dipak Singh S/O Vinod Singh R/O Village- Piyariya ,P.S - Gaurichak, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kumar Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.05.2023 at about 8:30 am, husband of informant went to Patna for earning with some co-villagers. Thereafter, on 25.05.2023 at about 8:30 am, informant received a call on her mobile phone that her husband has died. Then, at about 4:30 pm, dead body of husband of informant was brought by one Ranjit Ram, who is driver of an ambulance and during enquiry, informant came to know that while doing some electrical work at the house of this petitioner, her husband died.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75165 of 2024(2) dt.21-01-2025 2/2 submits that from bare perusal of FIR, it is manifest that there is no allegation of over act against this petitioner. He has been made accused in this case merely on suspicion. At the relevant time, petitioner was in custody in connection with Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 194 of 2023, as such it cannot be said that petitioner was involved in the alleged occurrence.

5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed and submits that petitioner is named in the First Information Report with the allegation that he committed murder of the husband of informant. The husband of informant died in the house of this petitioner. It is further stated that petitioner has got 5 criminal antecedents. Hence, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and materials available on record, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) utkarsh/- U T