Brind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71689 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2019 Thana- NAGARNAUSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== BRIND KUMAR S/o Brahmadeo Prasad Resident of Village- Premnagar, P.S.- Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2020 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Nagarnausa P.S. Case No.88 of 2019 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner and Gyandeo Sharan Sinha, the nephew of the deceased were looking after the business of the deceased, who was found dead inside his house.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The only material against the petitioner is that the police dog caught the petitioner and Gyandeo Sharan Sinha, the nephew of the deceased. From the possession of Gyandeo Sharan Sinha, the ring of the deceased was recovered. It is further submitted that some

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71689 of 2019(4) dt.06-03-2020 2/2 persons got 4 acres of land of the deceased transferred in their names and they might have killed the deceased after acquittal from the High Court but it appears that the petitioner and nephew of the deceased were looking after the business affairs of the deceased. The deceased was found strangulated to death inside his house. Petitioner and Gyandeo Sharan Sinha were not present. Petitioner and Gyandeo Sharan Sinha were living with the deceased. Later on, police dog caught the petitioner and Gyandeo Sharan Sinha and it transpired that petitioner and Gyandeo Sharan Sinha strangulated the deceased to death in order to grab his money.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T