Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7764/2024bail rejected

Amod Sahani @ Amod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-10Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7764 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2022 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== AMOD SAHANI @ AMOD KUMAR SON OF LATE RAM NATH SAHANI R/O-KERMA DIH, P.S.-KUDHANI, DISTT.-MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hari Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 10-05-2024 Heard Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2023 arising out of Kudhani P.S. Case No. 92/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 27.2.2022 by the informant, Anita Kumari.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant who is sister of the victim lady alleged that she was married to this petitioner but was tortured for dowry and on 27.2.2022, it was informed that she died on 26.2.2022 and the mortal remains were already consigned to flames. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation it has come that he was away when the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7764 of 2024(3) dt.10-05-2024 2/2 killing is alleged. Further, no such dowry was claimed and only because her husband himself to be implicated.

4. Learned APP on the other hand points out to the supervision note and submits that death took place on 26.2.2022 and they took 24 hours to inform the parents. Further, the allegation is that even while remaining outside, while she was pregnant, was always threatened of dire consequences by this petitioner.

5. In that background, for the present this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected.

6. However, taking into account that he is in custody since 16.9.2022 (para-9 of the petition), the Trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T