Amar Chaudhary @ Chandan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6360 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2017 Thana- JADOPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Amar Chaudhary @ Chandan Yadav Son of Baban Yadav @ Baban Chaudhary R/o Village - Manjhariya, P.S. - Jadopur, District - Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhramveer, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-03-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP for the State. The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Jadopur P. S. Case no. 21 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by order dated 23.08.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 33947 of 2017.

Though the petitioner is named in the complaint now F.I.R. which is of the March, 2017 but till date he had not surrendered. He has not taken any steps for anticipatory bail and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6360 of 2022(2) dt.22-03-2022 2/2 was absconding.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court but they have been granted anticipatory bail in the order of 2017. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but he has chosen to defy the law since 2017 and the only explanation is that he was working in some foreign country. No document has been produced by him in support of the same as to whether from 2017 to 2021, he had never visited the country.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

The petitioner is directed to surrender within two weeks and if he surrender within two weeks, the application for regular bail shall be considered without being prejudiced by the rejection of the anticipatory bail from this court and the court below shall consider the fact that similarly situated persons have been granted anticipatory bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) shakir/- U T