The petitioner, apprehending arrest under the Indian Penal Code for murder, sought anticipatory bail. The High Court, considering the prosecution case and lack of independent substantive evidence sufficient to bail the petitioner at this stage, dismissed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.5374 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -301 Year- 2016 Thana -KADWA District- KATIHAR
======================================================
Kameshwar Sharma, son of Labru Sharma, resident of Village- Pakaria, Police Station- Balia Belon, District- Katihar.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
4 17-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kadwa (BB) P.S. Case No. 301 of 2016 for the offences instituted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that co-accused Ramesh Sharma lost his cool and pushed the daughter of the informant on the ground, as a result of which, she sustained injury and later on died.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5374 of 2017 (4) dt.17-03-2017
2/2
no eyewitness to the occurrence nor the informant is an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. Except for the vague allegation, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest his implication in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.
On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the name of the petitioner has come in course of investigation. The injury has been caused upon the deceased by the petitioner, which is evident from the case diary.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected in connection with Kadwa (BB) P.S. Case No. 301 of 2016, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Katihar.
If the petitioner surrenders in the court below within a period of six weeks from today, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Amit/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
An application for anticipatory bail was filed in connection with murder charges.
The High Court exercised its discretion to grant or refuse anticipatory bail.
Kameshwar Sharma
The State of Bihar
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
