Mahesh Choudhary @ Mahesh Mahto @ Mahesh Choudhari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24804 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-404 Year-2020 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== MAHESH CHOUDHARY @ MAHESH MAHTO @ MAHESH CHOUDHARI Son of Late Chandeshwar Choudhary Resident of VillageBikrampur, P.S.- Samastipur (Muffasil), District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-09-2021 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in Samastipur (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 404 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, on 17.09.2020 at 3.30 pm informant got information that her husband is lying on earth near the pond of Bande Chowk. Informant reached there and saw her husband senseless and he was taken to hospital, but on the way he died. Informant came to know that her husband was seen with Mahesh Choudhary (petitioner) and she suspected that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24804 of 2021(3) dt.02-09-2021 2/2 due to previous enmity this petitioner committed murder of her husband by administering poison.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. There is no direct or indirect evidence against this petitioner which shows his complicity in the aforesaid crime. Petitioner is in custody since 16.12.2020 having no criminal antecedent. Investigation is complete Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner was seen with the deceased on the date of occurrence and thereafter deceased was found in unconscious condition in the room of petitioner. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T