Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36714/2024bail rejected

Pramod Chaudhary @ Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-26Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36714 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-841 Year-2023 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== Pramod Chaudhary @ Pramod Kumar S/o Manoj Chaudhary R/o Village Hara Kurha PS Fatehpur Dist Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 26-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 841 of 2023 lodged under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against four named accused persons including the petitioner against whom there is allegation that the petitioner and his father have killed the daughter of the informant by causing pressure on the neck by hand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner is a husband and deceased is his wife. He submits that though there is relation of husband and wife, but

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36714 of 2024(3) dt.26-07-2024 2/2 section 304B of I.P.C. has not been added.

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the content of F.I.R., it become clear that it is the petitioner who has informed the father of the deceased on mobile and it is due to this reason, counsel submits that the petitioner is innocent.

6. Counsel further submits that suspicion has been raised in the F.I.R. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 22.11.2023 having clean antecedent.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that case diary has been called for. He raised single point that in the F.I.R., it has been alleged that the death has been caused by creating pressure on the neck by hand and post-mortem report has same finding.

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T