Sudhir Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26880 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2020 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

SUDHIR CHAUDHARY Son of Jaggu Chaudhary Resident of Village - Murera, Tola Bairagi Bigha, P.S. Konch, District - Gaya. 2.

Sangram Chaudhary Son of Jaggu Chaudhary Resident of Village - Murera, Tola Bairagi Bigha, P.S. Konch, District - Gaya. 3.

Jaggu Chaudhary Son of Babulal Chaudhary Resident of Village - Murera, Tola Bairagi Bigha, P.S. Konch, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kunwar Narayan Jamuar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Anbzarul Haque Sahara ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 131 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. Both sides are agnates and there is old land dispute between the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26880 of 2021(4) dt.11-04-2022 2/2 parties. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioners are named accused in the first information report and there is direct allegation of assault against them which is supported by the injury report. Petitioners, therefore, do not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T