Satish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.52228 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -31 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHILA PS DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================
1. SATISH KUMAR son of Sheo Pujan Sah, resident of VillageAnandiganj, P.S.- Palanava, District- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kr.Singh 1(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 16-12-2015 Heard Mr. Verma for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP for the State.
Petitioner is brother-in-law (devor) of the informant and is facing prosecution under Sections 341, 342, 506, 323, 354A, 354B, 354D, 376 and 511/34 of the Indian penal Code vide Mahila P.S Case No. 31 of 2015.
The informant has alleged that while she was alone in the room, the petitioner intruded and in reckless manner tried to outrage her modesty. The clothes were torn and teeth bite was embedded by him on her breast and other parts. While living the room he hurled out threat.
Contention of the petitioner is that the lady was not having good relations with the family members. After one year of marriage, she had left the matrimonial home on 16.5.2014 and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52228 of 2015 (2) dt.16-12-2015 2/2 thereafter a divorce case was lodged by the husband of the informant on 18.7.2014. Subsequently, the lady also filed a case of matrimonial atrocities against the family members. Petitioner is languishing in jail since 16.9.2015.
Mr. Singh, APP on the other hand submitted that in course of investigation witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The injury report of the victim also supports the allegations. Having regard to the submission of the parties I am not persuaded to privilege the petitioner of bail for the present. Prayer is, accordingly, refused/ rejected. He may renew his prayer if the trial does not record adequate progress within 05 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/Siddharth U T