Chandan Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83803 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1079 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Chandan Ram S/o- Late Bharat Ram Vill. Raghunathpur ward no. 27 Ps. Raghunathpur Dist. East champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr.Priyesh Kumar For the State :
Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP For the informant Mr. Sunil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 31-10-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner for the offences alleged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Turkauliya (Raghunathpur) P.S.Case No. 1079 of 2023.
3. According to allegation, when the informant along with her husband was returning home, on the way, the accused persons assaulted her husband with iron rod, knife etc. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he fired shot on the thigh of the deceased. He was shifted to hospital where he died.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83803 of 2024(13) dt.31-10-2025 2/2 submitted that the intention of the petitioner was not to kill the deceased. The injury attributed against the petitioner is not on the vital part of the body. The further submission of the learned counsel is that the deceased, according to the medical opinion, died due to excessive bleeding.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation against the petitioner of firing, targeting the deceased who died after sustaining injuries.
6. The petitioner has a host of criminal cases registered against him, and in view of his strong criminal background, he does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T