Manager Sah v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16221 of 2017 (4) dt.29-06-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16221 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -75 Year- 2016 Thana -MEERGANJ District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Manager Sah Sono f Late Jagu Sah, Resident of Village-South MuhallaTurhapatti, P.S.-Mirganj, District-Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Dinesh Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is in custody since 06.09.2016 in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 75 of 2016 registered under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the deceased died due to pain in the stomach. The petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased has never demanded any dowry nor tortured the deceased. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence and merely on suspicion, the petitioner has been made accused in this case. The petitioner is rotting in custody for the last nine months.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of this

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16221 of 2017 (4) dt.29-06-2017 petitioner and submitted that the death of the deceased occurred within one year of marriage due to mental and physical torture and the petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased is solely responsible for death of deceased. The witnesses have also supported the prosecution version, which is evident of paragraph 8 to 11 of the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J.) brajesh/- U T