Sandeep Chaudhary @ Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2170 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2024 Thana- BAIRIYA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sandeep Chaudhary @ Sandeep Kumar S/O Dilip Chaudhary R/O VillageTumkariya, P.S.- Bairiya, Dist.- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No. 269 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126, 118, 109, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

As per prosecution case, co-accused persons caught the husband of the informant and it is alleged that petitioner stabbed knife in his abdomen with the intention to kill him due to which he sustained injury.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2170 of 2025(2) dt.17-01-2025 2/2 It is alleged that petitioner has given knife blow upon the informant, but the injury is simple in nature and depth of the injury is stated to be can't ascertained. It is submitted that informant is not the eye witness to the occurrence. Petitioner is a man of clean antecedent. Other co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10-12-2024, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 83669 of 2024.

5.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, hence, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not fit it apposite to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, is accordingly, rejected.

7.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below within a period of four weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same would be considered by the court below in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

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