Balindra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15043 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2019 Thana- INDUSTRIAL AREA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Balindra Paswan, age 33 years, Male, Son of Ram Laxman Paswan, R/o Village Chhoti Usufpur, P.S. Industrial Area, District Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Ms. Rina Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. H.A. Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Hajipur Industrial Area P.S. Case No.139 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, Laldhari Devi alleged that marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2016. After few days of marriage, her daughter was subjected to torture physically and mentally by her husband and other inlaws for additional demand of dowry. It is further alleged that on 04.08.2019 at 11.00 p.m., her son-in-law informed that her daughter is missing. When the informant reached there on 05.08.2019, she did not find any person in the matrimonial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15043 of 2021(3) dt.05-10-2021 2/2 house of her daughter and she raised suspicion that her daughter might be killed by her husband and other in-laws. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no overt act alleged against the petitioner. There is general and omnibus allegation in the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2020. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Considering the fact that petitioner is the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T