Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48468/2023rejected

Mukesh Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

2023-11-06Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48468 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2022 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== MUKESH CHAUHAN Son of Late Yogendra Chouhan Resident of village - Begrajpur, P.S. - Warsaliganj, Distt. - Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 06-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of killing the husband of the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. During investigation, some witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, they stated that all the accused persons were involved in committing the murder of the husband of the informant. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 03.05.2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48468 of 2023(4) dt.06-11-2023 2/2

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that there is specific overt act of firing upon the informant's husband is against the petitioner and co-accused Ranjit Chauhan, due to which he succumbed to injury. As per postmortem report, it appears that the cause of death is haemorrhage as a result of gun-shot injury, which corroborates the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Arish/- U T