Prem Kumar Choubey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58619 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- KARAKAT District- Rohtas ====================================================== Prem Kumar Choubey S/O Gopal Choubey R/O Village- Hariharpur, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-08-2025 Heard Mr. Patanjali Rishi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution is that Archana Devi (deceased) was married to the petitioner on 30.04.2015. It is alleged that all the family members committed her murder. It is also alleged in the FIR itself that at the time of the occurrence, the husband was in private service at Ludhiana and that he has conspired the murder.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58619 of 2025(2) dt.27-08-2025 2/3 committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the petitioner was not present at the place of the occurrence, rather he was at Ludhiana. From perusal of the order of the trial court, it also transpires that the police has filed charge-sheet under Section 306/34. He further submits that a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 28.02.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State. The learned counsel for the informant is present and has submitted that apart from ligature mark, the deceased was having injuries on her person which goes to show that it is not a case of Section 306B as it may be. It is clear from the FIR itself that the petitioner was not present at the time of the occurrence.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58619 of 2025(2) dt.27-08-2025 3/3 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas, in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T