IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81827 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-863 Year-2021 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== Raju Choudhary @ Raju Kumar, Son of Shiv Choudhary, Resident of Village - Govindpur, Kanchanpur Kandli (Goraiya Sthan me Kirayedar), P.S. - Fatuha, District – Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 6 22-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating therein that on account of inadvertence, in para-3 of the bail application, it was wrongly mentioned that the petitioner bears one criminal antecedent, in fact, he bears two criminal antecedent, as has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit. 3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Fatua P.S. Case No. 863 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386, 447, 341, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Allegedly, while the informant was in her house along with children, in the meanwhile, at about 11:30 PM, some unknown persons forcibly barged into her house and put a pistol Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81827 of 2024(6) dt.22-05-2025 2/3 over her head and snatched her golden earrings and jitya. The accused persons also took away Rs.20,000/-, which was kept beneath the pillow. The petitioner was identified as one of the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in fact, no such occurrence has taken place and only on account of the fact that the informant had taken some loan from the petitioner and when the petitioner started pressurizing to return his money, the present FIR came to be lodged. The entire prosecution case falls to the ground for the simple reason that in the written statement of the informant, she has stated that she went to the house of the petitioner and narrated the entire incidence to his mother but during the course of investigation, it has come that the petitioner does not reside at the place disclosed by the informant. Moreover, after investigation, the police has not found case true under Sections 384, 386 and 379 of the I.P.C. and charge-sheet is directed to be submitted only under Sections 341, 323, 447, 354, 504/506 of the I.P.C. It is lastly contended that the petitioner undertakes that he will fully cooperate in the proceedings of the Court and would not indulge in intimidating the witnesses and the informant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81827 of 2024(6) dt.22-05-2025 3/3 vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has assaulted the informant and also snatched her gold valuables. 7. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the nature of allegation and the fact that the police has not found case true under Sections 384, 386 and 379 of the I.P.C. as also the materials collected during the course of investigation, suggesting no injury to the informant and others, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Patna City in connection with Fatua P.S. Case No. 863 of 2021, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner. rohit/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T