Sunil Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58902 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2022 Thana- RAMGARH District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== SUNIL CHAUDHARY Son of Sri Kapildev Chaudhary Resident of VillageAkorhi, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 24-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, while the brother of the informant went to village Akhaurhi to participate in celebration of Ambedkar Jayanti, petitioner along with accused Jitendra Chaudhary and Gurucharan Chaudhary opened fire upon him as a result of which he received three gun shot injuries i.e. below eye, near jaw and near naval.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Large number of persons were present in the celebration but the police

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58902 of 2022(3) dt.24-02-2023 2/2 has not recorded the statements of those persons. In fact, petitioner was election representative of Mukhiya candidate Smt. Sumitra Devi, wife of co-accused Guru Charan Chaudhary, and due to political rivalry, he has been implicated in this case. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 27.06.2022. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submitted that during investigation, several witness in para 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 have supported the prosecution story.

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.

The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U