Chandrabhushan Kumar @ Jhagdu Yadav @ Chandrabhushan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16177 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-473 Year-2022 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Chandrabhushan Kumar @ Jhagdu Yadav @ Chandrabhushan Yadav Son of Rajendra Yadav Resident of Village - Basudevpur, Police Station - Sonaki (O.P.) and District - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to F.I.R., on 12.12.22 at about 6 PM, coaccused Chandan Jha and Randhir Yadav came at the house of informant and took her husband on motorcycle. At about 11 PM, she got information that dead body of her husband is lying near Kalyanpur. Informant suspects that the F.I.R. named accused persons including this petitioner committed murder of her husband. It is further alleged that co-accused Vijay Yadav had threatened the husband of informant in the past.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16177 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 2/3 specific case of the informant that co-accused Chandan Jha and Randhir Yadav took her husband on motorcycle and thereafter, his dead body was found. So far this petitioner is concerned, it is only alleged that this petitioner used to come to the house of informant for the purpose of sale and purchase of land. There is absolutely no allegation of overt act against the petitioner and informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence. He further submits that as a matter of fact, husband of the informant met with an accident and it was an accidental death. He lastly submits that except suspicion there is no other material available on record to show the complicity of this petitioner in the present case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. Considering the the nature of accusation and other facts and circumstances of the case, this anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with Kalyanpur P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16177 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 3/3 S. Case No. 473 of 2022, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T