Jhanjha Paswan @ Jhanjho Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13494 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2023 Thana- DANDARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Jhanjha Paswan @ Jhanjho Paswan S/O Rambadan Paswan R/O VILLAGESHUDHARAN, PS.- DANDARI, DIST.- BEGUSARAI. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dandari P.S. Case 53/2023, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, petitioner alongwith other have concertedly committed the murder of informant's daughter by way of strangulation due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 16.07.2023 and bears no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the petitioner is brother-in-law of the deceased. Both are residing separately and there is no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13494 of 2024(4) dt.19-07-2024 2/2 concern with his brother and deceased. There is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner who is said to have committed the murder of the informant's daughter by strangulation and the same is corroborated by the postmortem report. He further submits that in para 50 of the case diary, the petitioner is said to have killed the victim by way of strangulation. Occurrence took place within one year from the date of marriage of deceased and death has been done in suspicious circumstances. Hence, petitioner does not deserve bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner coupled with the postmortem report and material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

7. However, if trial is not concluded within nine months from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T