Laxmi Chaupal @ Laxmi Choupal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29070 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2019 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Laxmi Chaupal @ Laxmi Choupal, S/o Sukhdeo Chaupal, Resident of Village- Bengwahi Ward No. -1, P.S.- Raniganj, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 05-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case No.288 of 2019 (G.R. No.3057 of 2019) for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequenty, Sections 302, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been added.

The allegation in the prosecution case is that the informant's son has been done to death by the petitioner and his family members as he was maintaining an amorous relationship with the petitioner's daughter.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that beyond suspicion, there is no basis for the petitioner's implication. It is further submitted that the petitioner is now in custody for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29070 of 2020(9) dt.05-02-2021 2/2 about a year i.e., since 28.01.2020.

The learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that in the investigation and as per the prosecution case, very strong circumstances have led to the petitioner's implication. The manner in which the victim has been done to death is very heinous as the body parts have been recovered from three different places. Considering the rival submissions, this Court, for the present, is not inclined to allow the prayer for bail. The same is rejected.

This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T