This order rejects the bail application of the petitioner accused under IPC 363. The court, hearing legal submissions noting lack of eye-witnesses versus mobile tower evidence and the missing informants husband, declined to enlarge him on bail.
The prayer for bail is rejected; the petitioner remains in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27844 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2020 Thana- BANKA District- Banka
======================================================
Awdhesh Chouhan Son of Vasudev Chauhan Resident of Village - Telaundha, P.S.- Dhoraiya, Distt.- Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Nurul Hoda For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
5 08-12-2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in Banka (Barahat) P.S. Case No. 228 of 2020 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the FIR, this petitioner called the husband of informant and husband of the informant went out, but he did not return. Informant suspected that this petitioner kidnapped her husband or committed his murder.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. Only material that has come against this petitioner is that he called the husband of informant. Save and except there is no material against him which shows
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27844 of 2021(5) dt.08-12-2021 2/2
his complicity in the alleged occurrence. Petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2020.
Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that during course of investigation, it has come that mobile tower location of petitioner and the husband of informant has been found at the same place and the husband of informant is still traceless. Petitioner called the husband of informant and he went out and thereafter, he became traceless.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
vinita/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail being in custody for an offence under Section 363 IPC where the accused phone call to the victim's husband and the husband became traceless.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Awdhesh Chouhan
The State Of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
