Chandan Kr. @ Chandan Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86588 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2025 Thana- SRIPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Chandan Kr. @ Chandan Chauhan S/O Deo Narayan Chauhan Resident of Village- Lohathi, P.S- Kateya, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dharmveer, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Murli Dhar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 23.08.2025 in connection with Sripur P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is based on written application of the informant namely Prem Shila Devi, stating therein that her husband Late Laxmi Niwas Singh has sold his 01 Katha, 05 Dhurs of land to one Asma Khatoon about eleven (11) months ago for consideration amount of Rs. 3,62,500/- for which the Asma Khatoon has not paid the amount at that time and told that when he performed marriage of his daughter then she will made payment of entire amount without
2/4 payment of amount when she was started getting mutation of the land then her husband and his elder brother Ram Niwas Singh stop the mutation till the full payment of amount. It is further stated that when there was need of money at the time of marriage of her daughter then her husband Late Laxmi Niwas Singh demanded his money from Assma Khatoon, then she avoided and not paid the money. On 04.04.2025, her husband after dinner in night went to see Yagya and at 11.00 P.M. in night went to sleep in his bathan. On 05.04.2025 at about 04.00 Hrs in morning, she and her elder daughter Priyanka Kumari went to bathan and found her husband sleeping on cot. When she tried to a woke then her husband did not awoke. When she removed the bad role then she seen that the neck of her husband was cut by sharped weapon and he is died, then she started cry and hulla, then local people came and informed the local police. She has full faith that her husband is murdered by Alauddin Miya.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that initially the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the name of the petitioner has transpired during the course
3/4 of investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of coaccused person, namely, Rupesh Kumar Singh in paragraph-50 of the case diary in which he has stated that the petitioner and Rupesh Kumar Singh conspired for committing the murder of the informant's husband (deceased) and they have hired one Vikash Kumar Pandey and they have given Rs.50,000/- to him for committing the alleged occurrence. Thereafter, Vikash Kumar Pandey was arrested and his statement was recorded which is mentioned in paragraph-61 of the case diary in which he has admitted that he has committed the murder of the deceased and he has received Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner and co-accused persons, namely, Rupesh Kumar Singh.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner was involved in the present crime in question. Apart from that regular bail petition of the co-accused person, namely, Rupesh Kumar Singh has been rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 68111 of 2025 and another regular bail petition of the co-accused person, namely, Vikash Kumar Pandey has been rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.
4/4 68420 of 2025.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case supported by the evidence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Sripur P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Gopalganj.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T