Babu Lal Chaudhary @ Lal Babu Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8298 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2020 Thana- CHAKAND District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Babu Lal Chaudhary @ Lal Babu Chaudhary Son of Late Nanhu Chaudhary @ Vanshi Chaudhary Resident of Village- Sudhni, P.S.- Chakand, DistrictGaya 2.

Mahesh Chaudhary Son of Late Nanhu Chaudhary @ Vanshi Chaudhary Resident of Village- Sudhni, P.S.- Chakand, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ujjawal Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-04-2023 Heard both parties.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Chakand P.S. Case No. 187 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, all the eleven FIR named accused persons including petitioners killed the brother of informant.

It is submitted that allegation is general and omnibus against all the accused persons. Informant is not eye-witness of the occurrence. As a matter of fact, Soni Devi daughter-in-law of the deceased was suffering from some ailment and she was taken away to a Mazar by Chinta Devi (wife of deceased).

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8298 of 2023(2) dt.24-04-2023 2/2 When the informant came to know about this fact he assaulted his wife. Informant and the deceased are full brother and in order to grab the property of his brother (deceased) the entire family members of the deceased have been made accused in this case. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

Counsel for State however vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioners are named in the FIR and there is specific allegation against that petitioners along with nine others assaulted the deceased causing his death. Considering the facts aforesaid and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T