Chhotan Baitha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34391 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2020 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Chhotan Baitha S/O Punyadeo Baitha 2.

Jagnarayan Baitha S/O Late Baidya Nath Baitha 3.

Suga Devi W/O Punyadeo Baitha.

4.

Surti Devi @ Surati Kumari D/O Punyadeo Baitha all R/O Village-Dhekaha Kasba, P.S.-PIPRA Kothi, District-East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioners are said to have committed murder of the husband of the informant by means of brick and iron rod. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34391 of 2021(3) dt.03-03-2022 2/2 case. He submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. He submits that husband of the informant was excessively drunk and he fell down on ground at his door and became unconscious, thereafter, he died. He submits that the informant has filed this case to harass and blackmail the petitioner. He further submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that postmortem report has supported the prosecution case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 22 of 2020 pending before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T