Dismissed¶19

Chandan Jha @ Prem Prakash Jha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 May 2025CR. MISC./18565/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Crl. Misc. No.18565 of 2025, decided 07-05-2025 by Prabhat Kumar Singh, J: bail prayer of Chandan Jha @ Prem Prakash Jha REJECTED in PS Case No.-473/2022, Kalyanpur PS, Samastipur; offences under sections 302, 120B/34 IPC; prosecution alleges petitioner and co-accused Randhir Yadav took informant's husband on a motorcycle on 1.12.2022 and his injured body was found on the Darbhanga-Samastipur road; petitioner claimed innocence citing e-posh PDS distribution receipt (Annexure P/2); State (A.P.P. Ram Sumiran Rai) and informant (Umashankar Singh) opposed; bail rejected considering nature of accusation.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of accusation, the Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for bail. ¶19

Chandan Jha @ Prem Prakash Jha Vs The State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18565 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-473 Year-2022 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Chandan Jha @ Prem Prakash Jha Son of Harikant Jha Resident of Village -Mahatwar Police Station- Ghanshyampur District -Darbhanga

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ===============	... ... Opposite Party =======================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner For the State	: Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate : Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, A.P.P.
For the informant ===============	Mr Umashankar Singh, Advocate =======================================
CORAM: HONOU	RABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶8

3 07-05-2025

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and

¶10

the informant.

¶11

Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

As per the prosecution case, husband of informant was a property dealer and petitioner and others were his associate. On 1.12.2022, petitioner and co-accused Randhir Yadav came to the house of the informant and took him with them on a motorcycle and at about 11 pm Kalyanpur police informed the informant that her husband was lying dead on Darbhanga-Samastipur road in village Basudeopur. Thereafter, informant along with her nephew and others reached Sadar

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18565 of 2025(3) dt.07-05-2025 2/3

¶14

Hospital and saw that her husband was lying dead with 2 to 3 injuries on his head. Informant alleged that petitioner and other accused persons killed her husband and threw the dead body on the road.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. As per FIR, body of the deceased was found on the road and motorcycle was positioned atop the dead body which shows that deceased must have met fatal accident. Petitioner has been implicated in the present case with oblique reason as husband of the informant had taken some money for the purpose of business and when he accidentally died in road accident, taking advantage of the situation, informant implicated the petitioner in this case with false and concocted allegation. Besides this, on the date of occurrence, since petitioner’s father was PDS dealer, petitioner too was on the P.D.S. shop and from the morning till 4.45 P.M. he distributed grains to 69 beneficiaries and as it was done through e-posh machine his name is also coming on the receipt as e-posh machine works on thumb impression of the P.D.S. dealer or one who operates the e-posh machine. Receipt in this regard is contained in annexure P/2. Informant is not eye

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18565 of 2025(3) dt.07-05-2025 3/3

¶17

witness of the occurrence. Learned counsel submits that save and except suspicion, there is no other direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner to show his complicity in the occurrence. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State and the informant oppose the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR with specific allegation that he along with others came to the house of the informant and took her husband with them on a motorcycle, thereafter his dead body was recovered on the road by the police. Thus petitioner was last seen with the deceased. Post mortem report, contained in paragraph 26 of the case diary, supports the prosecution case.

¶19

Considering the nature of accusation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶20

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶21

Shashi

¶22

U T

Chandan Jha @ Prem Prakash Jha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Jha @ Prem Prakash Jha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Nand Gautam @ Sonu Vs The State of Bihar

Anish Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Nisha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Jahur Khan @ Jahur Alam @ Jahur Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Ravindra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Karunakar Mallik Vs The State of Bihar