Manu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11379 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2022 Thana- CHANDI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Manu Kumar Son of Naresh Rai @ Sadhu Resident of village- Narahi, P.S.- Chandi, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State :
Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad, APP For the Informant Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 113 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, petitioner and others are said to have killed the informant's daughter for nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and her dead body has been made to disappear.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11379 of 2024(4) dt.12-07-2024 2/3 alleged in the FIR and being husband of the deceased he has been falsely implicated in this case. No specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. He further submits that occurrence took place on 30.04.2022 and FIR lodged on 01.05.2022 and the police sent the FIR to A.C.J.M. on 06.05.2022 and hence, there is delay of five days in sending the FIR to the trial court and no explanation has been given regarding the aforesaid delay. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 28.08.2023 and bears no criminal antecedent. Hence, he deserves bail.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is husband of the deceased. Marriage took place on 28.05.2021 and the victim died within one year of marriage in suspicion condition. In para-7 of the case diary, witness Satyendra Kumar has supported the allegation levelled in the FIR. Inquest report indicates that death was due to strangulation and the said fact is also supported by the postmortem report. Hence, petitioner does not deserve bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11379 of 2024(4) dt.12-07-2024 3/3
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner coupled with postmortem report as well as material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
7. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within one year from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order to the court concerned. If there is no substantial progress in the trial, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) shahzad/- U T