Rahul Kumar Sahani @ Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 375 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28124 of 2020
    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-842 Year-2019 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================

Rahul Kumar Sahani @ Rahul Kumar, (male) aged about 18 years, S/o Late Rajdeo Sahani, Resident of Village-Kudhani, P.S.-Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate
For the State           :       Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-01-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Sada Nand Roy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Kudhani PS Case No. 842 of 2019 dated 25.12.2019, instituted

under Sections 341/323/324/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner and his mother is

that they had killed the son of the informant who was the father of

the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

allegation is false and the father was an alcoholic and in a drunken Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28124 of 2020 dt.27-01-2021

state, he had fallen on bricks due to which injury was caused and

he died.

6. Learned APP submitted that the allegation cannot be

brushed aside for the reason that it has been levelled by the father

of the deceased against the grand son and daughter-in-law and it is

not believable that a false case would be lodged against them

without any motive. It was further submitted that the deceased was

lying in the house and only when the informant came there, he saw

and took him to the hospital where he was declared dead and the

petitioner and his mother took no step. It was submitted that had it

been the fact that he had fallen, then he could not have come to the

house and if he came to the house, then the petitioner and his

mother not taking him to hospital cannot be explained and raises

strong finger towards their complicity in the crime.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T