Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28050 (PAT)

Vishwanath Rai v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./22730/2025 · 2025-05-01

Anshuman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22730 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-328 Year-2020 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1. Vishwanath Rai S/O Late Ram Prakash Rai @ Ram Prakash Bhagat R/O Village- Dhahiya Belar, P.S.- Samastipur Muffasil, District- Samastipur 2. Chandrakala Devi W/O Vishwanath Rai R/O Village- Dhahiya Belar, P.S.- Samastipur Muffasil, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 2 01-05-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Samastipur (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 328 of 2020 lodged on 06.08.2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against five named accused persons including the present petitioners against whom there is an allegation that they have poisoned the informant’s son due to which he died. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22730 of 2025(2) dt.01-05-2025 2/2 Counsel submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. Counsel further submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that there is specific allegation against the present petitioners in the FIR that they have poisoned the informant’s son due to which he died. 6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners are hereby rejected. Divyansh/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U T