Rudal Sahni @ Sadal Sahni v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81937 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2023 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rudal Sahni @ Sadal Sahni Son Of Harni Sahni @ Runi Sahni Resident Of Village - Balaha, P.S. - Lalganj, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Tetari Devi W/o Arjun Sahni R/o Vill.-Purainia, P.S.-Lalganj, DistrictVaishali. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 108 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 416 of 2023 registered under Sections 109, 120B, 342, 302, 201, 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, all the F.I.R. named persons including the petitioner committed the murder of the brother of the informant/opposite party no. 2 and disappeared the dead body.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81937 of 2023(5) dt.07-05-2024 2/2 implicated in the present case due to enmity and local politics. Further submission is that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by contending that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of the brother of the informant/opposite party no. 2. It is further contended that during course of investigation, many witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Hence, petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) utkarsh/- U T