Ramchandra Chaudhary And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55364 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -106 Year- 2015 Thana -RAJPUR DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Ramchandra Chaudhary, S/o Bhagwat Lal Chaudhary

2. Sudha Devi, W/o Bhagwat Lal Chaudhary Both resident of VillageSalempur, P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. H.A. Khan (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners are accused in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 106/2015 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Sadar, Motihari, East Champaran.

The accusation against the petitioners is that the informant Rambilash Rai, Chaukidar received information on 07.08.2015 about sprinkling kerosene oil and putting on fire to the deceased Annu Devi. Then he reached there and saw Annu Devi, daughter-in-law of Bhagwat Lal Choudhary in burning condition who also disclosed about sprinkling kerosene oil by her mother-in-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55364 of 2015 (3) dt.16-02-2016 2/2 law Sudha Devi and husband Ram Chandra Choudhary. While the arrangement was made to rush her for treatment but she died. The informant further came to know that there was illicit relationship of Sudha Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased with Surendra Paswan and due to which the occurrence took place. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are husband and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased and due to dirty village politics, the petitioners have been implicated in this case with false allegation. The parents of the deceased have also not come forward to support the case. It is further submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 08.08.2015.

Learned A.P.P. submits that in paras 9, 10, 11, 25 and 26 of the case diary witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution stating that the deceased died due to burn injury after sprinkling kerosene oil by the accused persons. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners stands rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Rakhi U T