Chandradeep Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66115 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2024 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Chandradeep Prasad Son of Late Mahngu Mahto R/o Village- Pachpaika, P.S.- Ujiyarpur, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur Mrs.Vaishnavi Singh Mr. Ritwik Thakur For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Ms. Priya ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per F.I.R., informant alleges that on 22.07.2024 her husband had gone to Civil Court, Dalsingsarai for some work and as he reached near Dainy Chowk, accused persons including these petitioners came upon their motorcycles and surrounded the husband of informant. It is alleged that everyone fired from their pistol and shot dead husband of informant. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66115 of 2024(4) dt.09-01-2025 2/2 alleged that altercation was result of previous dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that informant is not eye-witness to the occurrence and only suspicion has been raised against this petitioner and he has been made accused in this case due to old enmity.
5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that he alongwith others shot dead husband of the informant. During investigation, some of the witnesses have claimed to be eyewitness to the occurrence and named this petitioner, as perpetrator of the crime. Petitioner has got three criminal antecedent also.
6. Considering the nature of accusation, material that has come during course of investigation and criminal antecedent of petitioner, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T