Ram Nath Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6467 of 2016 (3) dt.07-04-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6467 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -74 Year- 2013 Thana -PAROO District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Ram Nath Thakur S/o Rajendra Thakur, Resident of Village Daudpur, P.S Paroo, Distt -Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. A.M.P.Mehta(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2016 arising out of Paroo P.S. Case No. 74 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sindhu Devi, the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner on 08.04.2001 and allegedly, due to nonfulfillment of the demand of dowry, she was being assaulted and tortured by the petitioner and other in-laws and further the petitioner performed second marriage and ousted the daughter of the informant, resulting the case was lodged and as per the order of the Court, the petitioner brought the daughter of the informant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6467 of 2016 (3) dt.07-04-2016 in the month of April, 2013 but the petitioner and others killed her on 09.02.2015 and burnt the dead body.

The submission is of false implication and that the allegations made in the First Information Report are totally false, the petitioner never made any demand or tortured her, she was suffering from internal disease and she died due to diabetes and without any fault, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 04.05.2015 to which the learned A.P.P. seriously opposes by submitting that during investigation, the witnesses have supported the prosecution version against the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner and further his prior conduct, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer of bail stands rejected.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Amit/- U T