Anjani Kumar Chaudhary And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25646 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -151 Year- 2014 Thana -BATHNAHA District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Anjani Kumar Chaudhary, Son of Kari Chaudhary

2. Bhola Chaudhary, Son of Kaushal Kishore Chaudhary @ Kaushal Chaudhary Both residents of Village Lachhua, PS- Bathanaha, DistrictSitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan(Spl.Pp) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It is alleged by the informant that on 21.05.2014 11.12.2014 at about 8.30 P.M. before the police that in the preceding night of previous day he saw his son-in-law Santosh Chaudhary, Bhola Chaudhary (petitioner) and Anjani Kumar Chaudhary (petitioner) and son of Prabhu Chaudhary talking together and they went away after some time. It is alleged that on 20.05.2014 in the night at about 8 P.M. informant's son-in-law

Santosh Cahduary came to his house and made pressure to his daughter Sulekha (deceased) to move with him and in spite of protest made by the deceased and mother of the informant his sonin-law took away the deceased with him. Thereafter, in the night at about 1.17 Hours said accused Santosh Chaudhary rang informant's son Mukesh Rout from his mobile no.9525568646 over the mobile of Mukesh Rout bearing no.8002942553 that he has killed his sister Sulekha.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. As far as the petitioners are concerned, it is alleged that they were seen one day prior to the occurrence talking to the son-in-law of the informant. Except for this, there is no other evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioners. There is no eye witness to the occurrence.

It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioners are named in the FIR.

Considering the aforesaid facts, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM,

Sitamarhi in connection with Bathanaha P.S.Case No.151 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sudhir Singh, J) B.Kr./- U T