Tulsi Chaupal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78747 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2021 Thana- MANIGACHI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Tulsi Chaupal Son of Ram Kishor Chaupal village -Makranda PS -Manigachhi Distrct -Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Manigachhi P.S. Case No. 115 of 2021 instituted for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

Prosecution case in short is that on 19-05-2021, the informant's three-and-a-half-year-old daughter, went missing while playing and was later found near Chabhacha Pond with strangulation marks on her neck. She was taken for medical treatment, but she succumbed to her injuries. 4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 20-05-2021. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78747 of 2024(4) dt.20-02-2025 2/3 paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of suspicion. It is submitted that deceased was suffering from chronic disease who was treated at local level that is why she died. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. It is submitted that no external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case.

6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Petitioner has confessed his guilt in his confessional statement. Other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. 7.

A report was called from the trial court and it is reported that four out of seven charge sheet witnesses have been examined.

8.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the advance stage of the trial, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, rejected. 9.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78747 of 2024(4) dt.20-02-2025 3/3 unnecessary adjournments.

10.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T