Surendra Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55252 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2021 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== Surendra Chaudhary son of Ramjit Chaudhary Village- Kosma tola Khariat PS- Dobhi Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.S. Jamil Akhter For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The following order was passed on 08.11.2023: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2021 in connection with Sherghati P.S.

Case No. 271/2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147/149/324/302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, six persons took the victim Prince Kumar who was killed later on. Other accused persons are also named in the F.I.R. to have participated in the crime.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

5. Learned Additional Public

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55252 of 2024(3) dt.29-01-2025 2/2 Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. In the impugned order, the learned Judge has said that the petitioner is the main accused. The murder weapon has been recovered on the statement of the petitioner.

7. Considering the fact that the petitioner is the main accused on whose statement, the murder weapon has been recovered, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. The trial of all the cases registered against the petitioner are directed to be expedited.

9. Let a copy of the order be communicated to the learned District Judge, Gaya as well as to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya through FAX/e-mail forthwith for compliance of the order."

3. The report has come from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya that out of 16 prosecution witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined.

4. Considering the aforesaid fact, this application is dismissed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Ranjeet/- U T