Nanhe Khan v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46751 of 2015 (4) dt.18-01-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46751 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -165 Year- 2014 Thana -LAURIYA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Nanhe Khan Son of Late Hajmullah Khan Resident of Village - Suarchhap Pipra, P.S. - Lauriya, District - West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivjee Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No. 165/2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Raushani Devi was married to Nasir Khan and thereafter she was killed and after cutting her dead body she was buried by the petitioner and other co-accused. Submission is of false implication, that the occurrence is of 06.10.2014, but written report has been submitted on 23.10.2014 after much delay, the petitioner is younger brother of the husband of the deceased, Nasir Khan has performed interreligion marriage and since after marriage he was residing

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46751 of 2015 (4) dt.18-01-2016 separately with his wife from the petitioner and others, mother-inlaw has already been allowed bail and as such the petitioner, who is suffering in custody since 07.11.2014, deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned A.P.P. fairly submits that the petitioner is the Devar.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the detention of the petitioner and further that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with prosecution evidence, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No. 165/2014, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rakhi U T