Awdhesh Chouhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27844 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2020 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== Awdhesh Chouhan Son of Vasudev Chauhan Resident of Village - Telaundha, P.S.- Dhoraiya, Distt.- Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Nurul Hoda For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Banka (Barahat) P.S. Case No. 228 of 2020 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the FIR, this petitioner called the husband of informant and husband of the informant went out, but he did not return. Informant suspected that this petitioner kidnapped her husband or committed his murder.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. Only material that has come against this petitioner is that he called the husband of informant. Save and except there is no material against him which shows

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27844 of 2021(5) dt.08-12-2021 2/2 his complicity in the alleged occurrence. Petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2020.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during course of investigation, it has come that mobile tower location of petitioner and the husband of informant has been found at the same place and the husband of informant is still traceless. Petitioner called the husband of informant and he went out and thereafter, he became traceless.

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