Kanhaiya Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47550 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -230 Year- 2017 Thana -JOGAPATTI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Kanhaiya Chaudhary Son of Ramsanehi Chaudhary Resident of villageJaralpur, P.S.- Jogapatti, District- WEst Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Tarun Prasad Mandal CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 30-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 230 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that his sister was married to one Awadhesh Chaudhary but she was killed by her in-laws and, thereafter, his niece Rupa Kumari was given fixed deposit of Rs. three lac and ten katha of land in the Panchayati held. On the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner along with six others killed his niece by means of knife and disposed of her dead body.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47550 of 2017 (3) dt.30-11-2017 2/3 It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal antecedent and just because, he is brother of Awadhesh Chaudhary, he has been made accused on suspicion and all the family members have also been implicated in this case. He submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering of the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner. He submits that confessional statement of the accused Awadhesh Chauudhary, before the police, has no evidentiary value in the eye of law and there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 08.07.2017. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage and accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 230 of 2017 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran.

However, learned court below is directed to conclude

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47550 of 2017 (3) dt.30-11-2017 3/3 the trial within one year and if the trial is not concluded by that time, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Nilu Agrawal, J) sushma/- U T