Niraj Jha @ Rishi Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85465 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2024 Thana- BAJPATTI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Niraj Jha @ Rishi Jha Son of Ramnaresh Jha Resident of Village- Rasulpur, P.S.- Dumra, Distt.- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ratneshwar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-06-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bajpatti P.S. Case No.148 of 2024 lodged on 26.05.2024 under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC.

3. As per the prosecution, the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown accused persons with allegation that they have called son of the informant and subsequently, his dead body was recovered.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner's name has figured in this case only on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. There is absolutely no material found against the petitioner in this case.

5. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.06.2024, having one criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85465 of 2024(3) dt.05-06-2025 2/2

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that father of the deceased has categorically indicated that they all came at the house of informant with whom his son went with them. Upon query by the father of the victim, they said that his son will return after 4 days, but after 2 days, his dead body was recovered.

7. Counsel further submits that there is direct involvement of the petitioner and it is a case of strong suspicion.

8. Upon specific query whether charge has been framed or not. Counsel submits that as per his knowledge, charge has not been framed till date.

9. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Siddharth Sagar/- U T