Jagarnath Ram Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6313 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2024 Thana- PHENHARA District- East Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

1. Jagarnath Ram S/O Late Bhikhar Ram Resident of Village- Rupauliya Tola Birta, Police Station-Phenhara, District- East Champaran

¶5

Shanti Devi W/O Jagarnath Ram Resident of Village- Rupauliya Tola Birta, Police Station-Phenhara, District- East Champaran

¶6

Manisha Devi W/O Sunil Ram Resident of Village- Rupauliya Tola Birta, Police Station-Phenhara, District- East Champaran

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 12-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶13

A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Phenhara P.S. Case No. 38 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 420(B)/34 of IPC.

¶15

3 . The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 01.03.2024 at about 7:00 P.M., informant’s son, Deepak Kumar Singh received a phone call from Naveen Ram and left the house, saying he would return shortly. It is further alleged that next morning, his dead body was found in Motilal’s field with sharp injuries on his forehead, neck and mouth. Upon inquiry,

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6313 of 2025(3) dt.12-05-2025 2/2

¶17

villagers disclosed that after 07:30 P.M., several persons including petitioners were coming from crime scene armed variously. Valuable items including Rs. 40,000/-, a mobile phone, gold chain and ring were missing from the body.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. Due to village enmity, all the family members of the petitioners have been implicated without any specific allegation.

¶19

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail.

¶20

6. Considering the serious nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners whereby they have been accused of conspirating to kill the informant’s son Deepak Kumar Singh, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶21

7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

¶22

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

¶23

kiran/-

¶24

U T

Jagarnath Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagarnath Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Bibi Akhtari @ Bibi Akhtari Begum Vs The State of Bihar

Yamuna Tanti Vs The State of Bihar

Mathura Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Bablu Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar