Dharmendra Chaudhary @ Dharo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33791 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2024 Thana- SOHSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Dharmendra Chaudhary @ Dharo S/o Late Raman Chaudhary R/o Vill.- Bari Pahari Mansor Nagar, P.S.- Sohsarai, District - Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mrs. Renuka Ratnakar(App125) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 171 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, petitioner shot dead the wife of the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. From the FIR, it is apparent that the informant is not an eye-witness. None of the witnesses examined during investigation has stated anything about the death of the wife of the informant. So claim of the informant on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33791 of 2025(3) dt.03-09-2025 2/2 this account is not corroborated by other witnesses. Though the sister of the informant is stated to be an eye-witness but it is also apparent from the FIR that she moved forward and the deceased was following her so it is not possible that she might have seen the occurrence. If she was the eye-witness, she ought to have recorded her fardbeyan or written report and lodged the FIR. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner ever threatened the deceased or her husband. Petitioner is in custody since 20.07.2024 and charge-sheet has been submitted. Petitioner is having clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the specific and serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, hence, his prayer for bail is rejected.

7. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) balmukund/- U T