Rambinay @ Rambinod Chaudhary @ Bilai Chaudhary @ Ram Vinay Chaudhary @ Ram Vinod Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61032 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2000 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== Rambinay @ Rambinod Chaudhary @ Bilai Chaudhary @ Ram Vinay Chaudhary @ Ram Vinod Chaudhary S/o Late Munsi Chaudhary R/o Vill -Raghunandanpur, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Renuka Ratnakar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 14-11-2025 Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 516/2024 arising out of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 98 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC, lodged on 18.09.2020 by the informant, Ram Chandra Chaudhary.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected vide order dated 27.11.2024 in Cr. Misc. 61247 of 2024.
4. As per the FIR lodged in the year 2000, the informant alleged that his younger son was called by the petitioner and other accused persons and thereafter, they left the
2/4 place. He did not return till next morning whereafter, the search was made, when the accused persons informed that his son has gone to Delhi in search of work, though the informant had no belief on it, the search continued. Later, in the evening on Sunday when the relatives were participating in a Yagna, fowl smell came whereafter, in the dense forest, the decomposed body with insects all around it was found, he was identified as the son of the informant which followed the FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that general and vague allegation is there against all the accused persons including the petitioner, others have been extended bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 11376 of 2002 (Ranjan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar) and Cr. Misc. No. 14970 of 2001 (Sanjay Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar) and only because he had no knowledge of his implication, was serving outside the State, returned after two decades when earlier, the bail application was rejected.
6. In this case, Trial Court report was called for according to which, the charges have been framed on 23.10.2024 and currently, it is fixed for evidence and eight witnesses have been examined.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that total, twenty five witnesses are there, some of them have
3/4 already passed away and if granted bail, he shall be diligently appearing in trial.
8. Considering the submission of the parties as also that the petitioner is in custody since 10.03.2024 has no criminal antecedent and an undertaking has been given that without fail, he shall be diligently appearing in trial, in that background, this Court is inclined to grant him privilege of bail.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Begusarai in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 98 of 2000 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every month for one year to mark his attendance
4/4 and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T