Bam Shankar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44877 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2021 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Bam Shankar Chaudhary Son Of Late Mahesh Chaudhary Resident Of Village - Ashogi P.S. Bairganiya, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Prasad Singh- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary- A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Jai Prakash Singh- Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State through video conferencing.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bairganiya P. S. Case No.46 of 2021, instituted for the offences under Sections 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.05.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and has antecedent of 13 cases as mentioned in Para-3 of the bail application.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the F.I.R. allegation is of killing of the son of the informant by named accused persons, but as far as this petitioner is concerned, he is not alleged to be the assailant nor

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44877 of 2021(4) dt.01-02-2022 2/2 he was present at the place of occurrence rather the petitioner is alleged to be the person, who had sometimes earlier threatened the deceased that he will not see Holi as the deceased had supported a N.D.A. candidate in the election. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely on suspicion that this petitioner had threatened the deceased came to be implicated with an allegation that he conspired to get the deceased killed. The learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner intended to get the deceased eliminated, then in that event, he would not have gone to the house of the deceased to threaten him and thus, would have been implicated if something had happened to the deceased. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present bail application with a liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. Permission is accorded.

Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T