Dholan Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23301 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2021 Thana- BELDOUR District- Khagaria ====================================================== Dholan Chaudhary Son of Jhapti Chaudhary R/o Village - Rohiyama, P.S.- Beldaur, District - Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-09-2022 Let the defect, if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Beldaur P.S. Case No. 222 of 2021, (G.R. No. 3103 of 2021) lodged under Section 302 of the I.P.C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged in the present case against the unknown person but in the F.I.R. the informant has raised suspicion against the present petitioner also.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an old aged person about 62 years of age. He is in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23301 of 2022(3) dt.01-09-2022 2/2 custody since 01.10.2021, charge sheet has already been filed in this case. On the point of his criminal antecedent, counsel for the petitioner submits that there were total 8 cases against the present petitioner but in 7 cases out of total 8 cases, he was acquitted and presently only one case pending against him except present one. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him by the Court. He also submits that there is no any eye witness of the occurrence and present case is running only on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is specific allegation in para 13 and 14 of the case diary which shows the direct involvement of the present petitioner in commission of the bank. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present.

But the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

With this observation, the bail petition is rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J) sadique/- U T