Hon'ble Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey rejected the petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under Sections 304-B, 201, and 34 of IPC. Directed petitioners to remove defects in documents within one month.
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.2298 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2021 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
======================================================
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-08-2022
Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 203 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant Sanju Manjhi made allegation that his sonin-law Lalit Manjhi informed her that the daughter of the informant had sustained injuries after falling from the roof. He rushed to the matrimonial house of his daughter. The inmates of the house were absconding. He came to know from the villagers that they had cremated the dead body stealthily in the midnight at two o’clock. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2298 of 2022(2) dt.04-08-2022 2/2
informant made allegation that the accused persons named in the FIR including the petitioners, prior to the occurrence were inflicting torture upon the deceased due to non-fulfillment of motorcycle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not the family members of the husband of the deceased rather he is maternal grandfather of the husband of the deceased. He has submitted so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned he is brother-in-law ( devar ) of the deceased. Both the petitioners have falsely been implicated.
From bare perusal of the impugned order it appears that the witnesses in paragraph No. 7, 9, 10 and 11 have fully supported the prosecution version and the investigation is still going on. At this stage, I do not find it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.
Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
SONALI/- U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are fit for the grant of anticipatory bail in connection with offences under Sections 304-B, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the defects in the legal documents can be removed to regularise the petition for bail.
Whether the apprehension of arrest is genuine given the non-fulfillment of a motorcycle and alleged torture.
Ishwar Manjhi
Salit Manjhi
The State of Bihar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
