Anil Chauhan And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.28748 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 2017 Thana -TELHARA District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ===========================================================
1. Anil Chauhan Son of Late Sheetal Chauhan
2. Rita Devi wife of Anil Chauhan
3. Raja Kumar @ Raja Babu Son of Anil Chauhan
4. Rohit Kumar Son of Anil Chauhan
5. Surjkant Kumar @ Suryakant Kumar Son of Rameshwar Chauhan All residents of village - Ikaspur, Police Station - Telhara, District - Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sharan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Shyamal Prakash, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared.
2. As the petitioner no. 1 is no more alive, the application
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28748 of 2017 dt.10-08-2017 2/3 on his behalf has become infructuous.
3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Telhara P.S. Case No. 9 of 2017 dated 29.01.2017 instituted under Sections 341/323/308/325/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is of assault, especially on Badri Chauhan, husband of the informant, who later on also succumbed to his injuries.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident is of 26.01.2017 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 29.01.2017, i.e., after delay of 3 days, for which there is no believable explanation. It was submitted that the dispute, as would be clear from the fardbeyan itself, started between the children. It was further submitted that even the medical report of the deceased initially reveals that he was examined on 29.01.2017 i.e., after 3 days of the alleged occurrence for which also there is no explanation. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners no. 2 to 5 have no criminal antecedent.
6. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant submitted that the daughter of the informant had initially also given a fardbeyan to the police but she is not aware of what happened of that and more importantly on the next date of occurrence i.e., 27.01.2017,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28748 of 2017 dt.10-08-2017 3/3 before the Sarpanch, the accused had agreed to bear the entire medical expenses of the husband of the informant but later on when they did not live up to their commitment, the informant was forced to lodge an F.I.R. and further that the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 04.02.2017. Learned counsel submitted that even the injury report discloses that it was caused due to hard blunt substance and the postmortem reveals that there was lacerated wound on the said part and the cause of death was shock due to haemorrhage.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
8. The application, accordingly, stands dismissed. , (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U T