Rajesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32331 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -153 Year- 2012 Thana -SARAI RANJAN District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Rajesh Rai, Son of Dinesh Rai, Resident of Village- Armauli, P.S. Ghatho, (O.P), District- Samastipur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sangita Sharma(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 06-11-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 366, 302 and 201/34 of the I.P.C Allegedly, the petitioner kidnapped Parwati Devi, the daughter of the informant and married with her though earlier she was married with Shatrughan Rai and thereafter the petitioner and other co-accused burnt her to death and made the dead body traceless. Later on the burnt dead body was recovered buried at the bank of Armouli Balan River which was identified by the informant as his daughter.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner was not married with the deceased. There is no eye witness of the occurrence and as such the petitioner who is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32331 of 2015 (3) dt.06-11-2015 2/2 suffering in custody since 28.06.2014 deserves sympathetic consideration and further the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

The learned A.P.P. opposes prayer for bail by submitting that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping Parwati Devi, solemnizing marriage with her and burnt to death.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with S.T. No. 384 of 2014 arising out of Sarairanjan (Ghatho) P.S. Case No. 153 of 2012 pending in the court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same preferably within eight months, failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T