Manjay Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47112 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-700 Year-2019 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MANJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY Son of Late Mahendra Chaudhary Resident of Village - Kalwari, P.S.- Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Fahimuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-05-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kanti P.S. Case no. 700 of 2019 registered under section 328 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, deceased gave Rs 3, 45,000/- to the petitioner for securing job in favour of the deceased 5/6 years prior to the alleged occurrence. The petitioner did not return the money even after demand. On 15.9.2019 petitioner called the deceased to receive his money and thereafter deceased was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47112 of 2021(2) dt.17-05-2022 2/2 found on road in an unconscious condition and he died during course of treatment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and he had not taken a single farthing from the deceased.

Sunita Rai, informant, mother of the deceased, in the FIR has stated that the deceased was called by the petitioner to receive the money which he had given to the petitioner and the petitioner administered poisonous substance to the deceased resulting into his death. This fact has also been supported in paras 7 and 8 of the case diary as mentioned in the impugned order.

In the circumstances, it is not fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) s.hassan/- U T