Gorakh Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11921 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2020 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Gorakh Chauhan Son of Satyanarayan Chauhan Resident of Village - Khadahi, P.S.- Kateya, Distt.- Gopalganj.

2.

Chandrabhusan Chauhan Son of Gorakh Chauhan Resident of Village - Khadahi, P.S.- Kateya, Distt.- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State through virtual court proceedings. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Kateya P.S. Case No.256 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are said to have killed the son of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is no eye witness in the present case. Merely on suspicion, the petitioners have been made accused in the case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11921 of 2021(3) dt.24-01-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners have killed the son of the informant.

Having considered the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records including the case diary, this Court finds that there is ample evidence in the case diary against the petitioners to show their involvement in the alleged offence, therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T