Dhuri Chaudhary @ Dhari Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.73033 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2018 Thana- SARE District- Nalanda ====================================================== DHURI CHAUDHARY @ DHARI CHAUDHARY son of Bhekhu Chaudhary @ Bhekha Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Khetalpura, P.S. Sare, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shashank Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sri Indra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Petitioner seeks bail in Saare P.S. Case No. 71 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 354, 447, 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302 of the IPC was added. Informant in his fardbeyan has stated that when he complained about misbehaving with his daughter, then petitioner along with FIR named accused assaulted him by means of Iron Rod and injured his head, elbow of right hand and palm of his left hand and when his wife came to save him she was also assaulted by Iron Rod on her head.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.73033 of 2018(4) dt.21-12-2018 2/2 Similarly, situated co-accused person has been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 68474 of 2018. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 28.07.2018. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner and perusing the injury report, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
However, the petitioner is granted liberty to renew the prayer for bail after completing one year of Jail custody. (S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- U