Ganesh Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2145 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-659 Year-2018 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== Ganesh Pandit S/o Jagdish Pandit Resident of Village- Karahariya, P.S.- Banka, Distt- Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Giri For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-05-2020 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Banka P.S. Case No. 659 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant is the father of the deceased Santosh Kumar Singh who had illicit relation with one Ruby Devi. The deceased was often seen with Ruby Devi, but Santosh Kumar Singh was living outside his parental house and did not come to his home. On 28.09.2018 the daughter of the informant told him about the murder of his son Santosh Kumar Singh.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2145 of 2020(4) dt.29-05-2020 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. Petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. Petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2018 having no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per the case diary the arms which was used in murder was recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T