Subhash Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3209 of 2016 (3) dt.16-03-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3209 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -182 Year- 2014 Thana -NIRMALI District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Subhash Chaudhary Son of Domi Chaudhary Resident of VillageNirmali Bazar Police Station- Nirmali, District- Supaul.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M. Rab, (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 16-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nirmali P.S. Case No. 182 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, Rubi Devi, the daughter of the informant, was married to the petitioner on 17.04.2014 and due to non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle she was being tortured and assaulted and ultimately she was burnt and during treatment she died. Submission is of false implication and that during investigation the informant and other witnesses have stated that Rubi Devi was married with Prbhash Chaudhary and accordingly, chargesheet has been submitted against Prabhash Chaudhary but the petitioner is suffering in custody. Further during investigation it has transpired that Rubi Devi committed suicide by burning

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3209 of 2016 (3) dt.16-03-2016 herself due to trivial dispute and as such the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 17.08.2015 deserves sympathetic consideration to which learned APP opposes by submitting that the petitioner is the husband.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with prosecution evidence, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Birpur (Supaul) in connection with Nirmali P.S. Case No. 182 of 2014, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T