Rabindra Bind @ Chhotelal Bind v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2550 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2022 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Rabindra Bind @ Chhotelal Bind Son of Ramjatan Bind Resident of VillageSikra, P.S.-Sonhan, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 331 of 2022, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the petitioner allegedly killed his wife and buried her body. On search, the police found the body buried under soil with signs of assault on her head.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is husband of the deceased and has never demanded

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2550 of 2025(3) dt.15-04-2025 2/2 any type of dowry. It is further submitted that petitioner is unaware of the fact that how his wife has died. The petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2022 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that specific allegation of murder is levelled against the petitioner for non-fulfillment of dowry by his wife. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. As per impugned order dated 11.09.2024, it appears that the trial is in progress and two prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence and the present stage of trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial expeditiously. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production, the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T