Bachhadu Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1106 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2021 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur ====================================================== BACHHADU CHAUDHARY Son of Kabadi Chaudhary Resident of VillageSaranpur (Bind Toli), P.S.- Ara Muffasil, District- Bhojpur (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Ranjan No.Ii For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-08-2022 Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 28/2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147/ 148/ 323/ 337/302 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, accusation against the petitioner is that he assaulted the brother of the informant by means of rod causing head injury and during treatment victim died.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to previous land dispute. There is case and counter between the parties on the same date of occurrence. The petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1106 of 2022(3) dt.01-08-2022 2/2 languishing in custody since 31.01.2021 and bears no criminal antecedent. He further submits that charge has already been framed against the petitioner on 24.09.2021. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner who assaulted the brother of the informant by means of rod causing head injury and during treatment victim died.

Considering the facts and circumstances there is specific accusation against the petitioner who assaulted the brother of the informant by means of iron rod and during treatment victim died and the same is corroborated by the postmortem report as alleged in the FIR, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T