Hitlal Bhagat @ Hitlal Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54798 of 2018 (3) dt.12-10-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54798 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -33 Year- 2018 Thana -SIWAIPATTI District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Hitlal Bhagat @ Hitlal Prasad son of Late Jay Mangal Bhagat, resident of Village- Banghara, P.S. Siwaipatti, District Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.N.Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-10-2018 0 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Siwaipatti P.S.Case No.33 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner as per FIR is that the petitioner called son of the informant and later on when he heard sound of firing, he went there and saw his son dead and the accused persons were taking the dead body of the son of the informant but on hulla the dead body was kept on the door of the informant and they fled away.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except last seen as he had called the deceased, there is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54798 of 2018 (3) dt.12-10-2018 nothing against him and the dead body was recovered from the door of the informant and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

Heard learned A.P.P. also and the learned counsel for the informant. They have opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the son of the informant was called by the petitioner and thereafter on the sound of firing when he went there he saw his son dead and the petitioner and other accused persons were trying to take away the dead body but on hulla left the dead body and fled away. It has also been submitted that earlier the petitioner had taken Rs.01 lac from the son of the informant and he was making demand of the same due to which he has been killed. Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U