Patna High CourtCR. MISC./68691/2024bail rejected

Natwar Chaudhary @ Natwar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-24Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68691 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-353 Year-2023 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ DistrictMadhepura ====================================================== Natwar Chaudhary @ Natwar Kumar S/o Ghanshyam Chaudhary R/o VillageKarauti, Ward No.4, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr.Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 24-01-2025 Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 353 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 16.11.2023 by the informant, Bechan Goswami.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while his son was going towards field, the accused persons including the petitioner herein surrounded and on the order of Pawan Goswani, Chandan and Natwar Choudhary (the petitioner) opened fire, causing injury to him. He was taken to Udakishunganj hospital and then to Madhepura but was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68691 of 2024(3) dt.24-01-2025 2/2 declared dead. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. learned Senior Counsel submits that though there is allegation against this petitioner beside one Chandan of opening fire which proved fatal, the fact remains that he has remained in custody since 18.11.2023 (para-6 of the petition).

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that that he has been named to be the main assailant. It is further submission that he has number of criminal cases under his belt.

6. Considering the submissions put forward by the parties as also the nature of allegation that has come against the petitioner, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to grant relief to him. In that background, the bail application stands rejected.

7. Since the petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2023, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an earliest.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U