Suraj Chaudhary @ Suraj Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30023 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2024 Thana- SAHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Suraj Chaudhary @ Suraj Kumar Chaudhary S/O Late Raj Kumar Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Saraya ward no. 3, P.s.- Sahpur, Dist.- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shiv Prasad Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2025
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sahpur P.S. Case No. 331 of 2024 dated 25.10.2024 registered u/s 331(4), 305 of the B.N.S. 2023.
3. As per the F.I.R. the informant is an Anganwari Sevika who resides in a rental house situated near South Bihar Gramin Bank Bilauti and on 06.10.2024 she slept around 23:30 hours and in the next morning she found that her golden 'jutiya' weighing 18 gram that she had worn was missing. She checked in CCTV camera footage of the Bank and found that around 00:20 hours in the night Suraj Choudhary (petitioner) entered into her house and stolen the golden 'jutiya' while the informant was sleeping.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30023 of 2025(2) dt.15-05-2025 2/2 has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. No stolen article has been recovered from the conscious possession and / or premises of the petitioner. The alleged occurrence has taken place on 06.10.2024 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged after an unexplained delay of 19 days on 25.10.2024. He next submits that the petitioner is one of the signatory of the complaint that have been filed against the informant before the CDPO, Shahpur and only for this reason in order to wreak vengeance the present false case been lodged against this petitioner.
5. Regard being had to the submission made by the parties, taking into consideration the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge- IVth Bhojpur at Ara has recorded in the impugned order refusing anticipatory bail that in paragraph 22 of the case diary police has claimed that in CCTV footage the petitioner can be seen entering into the house of the informant as well as the petitioner has two criminal antecedent and he is a habitual offender, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T