Karu Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88519 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2023 Thana- ASHTHAWAN District- Nalanda ====================================================== Karu Chaudhary S/O Ilaichi Chaudhary R/O Village- Dumrawan, P.SAsthawan, Distt.- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rudal Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 31-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Asthawan P.S. Case No. 180 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 325, 379, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, all the FIR named accused persons including the petitioner are said to have assaulted the informant brutally by means of deadly weapons due to which he sustained injuries.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. He has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88519 of 2024(2) dt.31-01-2025 2/2 false and based on concocted facts. All the alleged sections except Sections 307, 379 of the Indian Penal Code are bailable. No offence under Sections 307 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, but merely with a view to make the case serious, the above sections have been added. Learned counsel further submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and others to assault the informant brutally causing grievous injury to him. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the injury, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T