The High Court at Patna rejected an application for anticipatory bail. Despite defence submissions regarding lack of direct involvement and FIR delay, the court held that allegations of prior threat and recovery of the victim's body made the case unfit for anticipatory bail.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected.
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.2331 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2021 Thana- ANGARH District- Purnia
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nirmala Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-08-2022
The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed
to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the informant.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Angarh P.S. Case No. 22 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per prosecution version, the father of the informant had a contract with co-accused Mahbool Hussain
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2331 of 2022(2) dt.08-08-2022 2/3
for construction of the road. The father of the informant went to demand his money, whereupon the present petitioner and Mahbool Hussain abused him and threatened him to kill. On 30.08.2020 at about 10:30 night, one Mohammad Liyakat Ali, called the father of the informant, who accompanied with him, but did not return. In the next morning, at the information of Liyakat Ali the informant went to the place of occurrence, where he found the dead body of his father. He expressed his affirm belief that the accused persons named in the FIR, including the present petitioner, have committed murder of his father.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was Md. Liyakat Ali who called the father of the informant and not the present petitioner. He has also submitted that there is some delay in lodging of the FIR.
Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR. Prior to the occurrence, he had threatened to kill the father of the informant. Soon after threatening, the dead body of informant’s father was recovered.
The investigation is still continuing the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2331 of 2022(2) dt.08-08-2022 3/3
is named in the FIR and there is allegation that he prior to the death of the deceased had threatened to kill the informant’s father, as such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
shweta/- U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when the petitioner is apprehended of arrest in connection with offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and there is an allegation of prior threat to kill the
Whether the allegations of prior threat, recovery of dead body soon after the incident, and delay in lodging FIR render the current case unfit for granting anticipatory bail.
Tahmid Alam @ Lal Babu
The State of Bihar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
