Pintu Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12927 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2023 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada ====================================================== Pintu Chaudhary S/O Sri Mahadeo Chaudhary R/O Village- Iruri, P.SPakaribarawan, Distt.- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr.Rajeev Nayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Pakaribarawan P.S Case No. 271/2023 dated 22.06.2023 registered for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 21.06.2023 at 10:00 P.M., the informant son went to the new house for sleeping there and there is a shop of motorcycle parts in the said house and on the next day i.e. 22.06.2023 at about 6:00AM, when the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12927 of 2024(6) dt.23-07-2024 2/3 informant went there then he saw that main door of the house was open and his son was lying dead.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR, the name of the petitioner has sprung up on mere suspicion. Learned counsel has submitted that the informant is not the eye witness of the case. The petitioner has one antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2023.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner by submitting that at the instance of the petitioner the weapons used in the murder of the deceased Ajeet Kumar was recovered from the agriculture field. It is further submitted that the petitioner shot the deceased and the postmortem report also corroborates that the deceased succumbed to firearm injury. It is further submitted that the trial is going on and three witnesses have already been examined.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the specific and heinous nature of the allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12927 of 2024(6) dt.23-07-2024 3/3
7. The learned trial court is further directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest
8. Accordingly, the application stands rejected. (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T