Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16588 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2024 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== Chandan Kumar Son of Sri Indradeo Yadav @ Indradev Singh @ Indradev Singh Yadav Resident of Village- Chakdaulat, P.S.- Bakhtiarpur, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-05-2025 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1363 of 2024 arising out of Barh P.S. Case No. 152 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and later on converted into Sections 302, 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while he was sleeping in his house, he heard the sound of firing. Thereafter, he woke up and saw from the room Chandan Kumar (petitioner) fleeing away having pistol in his hand. He further saw Kundan Kumar, the brother of Chandan Kumar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16588 of 2025(4) dt.28-05-2025 2/3 (petitioner), and one another person sitting on the motorcycle outside the house. Thereafter, Chandan Kumar (petitioner) fled away from there on a motorcycle with them. When he went inside the house, he saw his daughter, Sindhu Kumari having fire-arm injury on her head. Regarding the aforesaid occurrence, the informant gave information to the Barh Police Station. His daughter Sindhu Kumar was taken to Sub-Divisional Hospital and then PMCH and she subsequently, succumbed to the injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that according to the F.I.R., the allegation is that the informant saw the petitioner fleeing away from the room of the house having a pistol in his hand with his brother on a motorcycle and he was not an eye witness to the actual occurrence. It has further been submitted that in course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of Manish Kumar and Bablu Kumar, according to which, petitioner was not even present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and petitioner had gone to Bhagalpur for work. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent and has been in judicial custody since 26.04.2024.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16588 of 2025(4) dt.28-05-2025 3/3 opposes the prayer and submits that this petitioner has killed the daughter of the informant, who is wife of the petitioner with the help of his brother as also the family members. He further submits that this petitioner wanted to take his wife back from the in-laws' house but the family members of his wife was not ready which led to the present occurrence.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present.
7.Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail stands rejected.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) Prakash/- U