Lalan Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72374 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2021 Thana- ARIYARI District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== 1.

LALAN CHAUDHARY Son of Mahendra Chaudhary Resident of VillageBaikathpur, P.S.- Ariyari, District- Sheikhpura. 2.

Mani Chaudhary @ Manikchand Kumar Son of Mahendra Chaudhary Resident of Village- Arar, Ward No.28, P.S.- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Syed. Rizwanul Haque For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34, 419 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the informant suspects that all the F.I.R. named accused including petitioners have committed the murder of her husband, due to the reason that accused persons were manufacturing country-made liquor at the bank of river, which was objected by her husband just two days prior to the occurrence and the accused had threatened him for dire consequences.

It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that petitioners

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72374 of 2021(2) dt.20-07-2022 2/2 have been falsely implicated in this case only on suspicion. Informant is not eye-witness of the occurrence and there is no other material to show complicity of these petitioners in the aforesaid crime. As a matter of fact, the deceased was a notorious criminal and might have been killed by some unknown person(s). petitioners have never indulged in manufacturing of illicit liquor or threatened the deceased prior to the occurrence.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the bail petition and submitted that ample evidence has come during course of investigation against these petitioners. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T