Lal Babu Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11281 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -372 Year- 2014 Thana -DINARA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Lal Babu Chaudhary, Son of Ram Nath Chaudhary, resident of Village: Milki Manihari, P.S: Dinara, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 01-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2015 arising out of Dinara P.S. Case No. 372 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rohtas at Sasaram registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that while she and her husband, Hanuman Choudhary (deceased) were cleaning paddy near school

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11281 of 2017 (3) dt.01-09-2017 2/3 and her father-in-law, Ramnath Choudhary was also sitting there, the petitioner along with three other named coaccused came variously armed with pistol and started beating her father-in-law and when her husband came to rescue, then the petitioner fired on her husband, as a result, he succumbed to the injuries. The cause of dispute is that few days earlier there was an altercation between the parties.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal history and there was a property dispute between the parties, hence, he has been implicated. He submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that the petitioner is the main assailant and the father-in-law of the informant has seen the occurrence.

Considering the facts and circumstances and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11281 of 2017 (3) dt.01-09-2017 3/3 the materials on record, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. This application is, accordingly, rejected.

(Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- U T