← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8041/2020bail rejected

Vijay Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2020-06-16Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8041 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-497 Year-2019 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Pandey Son of Ram Sogarath Pandey Resident of Village - Bahilbara, P.S.- Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

M/s Ajay Kumar Thakur, Nilesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 16-06-2020 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Incharge Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh for the State through video conferencing.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case No. 497/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased and there is allegation that he as well as his other family members used to torture the deceased due to non fulfillment of dowry demand and, subsequently, the deceased was killed by the petitioner and other accused. The postmortem report of the deceased goes to show that one injury was found on her person and the aforesaid injury is said to have been caused by sharp

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8041 of 2020(4) dt.16-06-2020 2/2 weapon. Deceased died within seven years of her marriage. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to petitioner and, accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably, within one year from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Spd/- U T