Ram Pravesh Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2520 of 2017 (3) dt.23-02-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2520 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -104 Year- 2015 Thana -AMAS District- GAYA ====================================================== Ram Pravesh Sharma, S/o Satyendra Mistri, resident of Village- Akauna, P.S.- Amas, District- Gaya.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Shankar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shyam Bihari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2017 Heard learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 104 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Poonam Devi, the daughter of the informant, was married to the petitioner on 14.05.2014 and due to non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 1,50,000/-, gold chain and Godrej Almiraha she was being tortured and ultimately she was burnt to death. Submission is of false implication and that there was cordial relation between the petitioner and his wife, due to some petty dispute the wife of the petitioner committed suicide by burning, she was taken out after breaking the door and this fact has come in paragraph 10 of the case diary, the Police officer has also reached at the place of occurrence after receiving the information of suicide vide paragraph 6
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2520 of 2017 (3) dt.23-02-2017 and independent witnesses have stated that the deceased committed suicide vide paragraph 11, 12, 31, 32, 35 and 36 of the case diary, the petitioner is suffering in custody since 09.09.2016, chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.
Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the statement of those witnesses and further that 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 S.D.J.M., Sherghati, Gaya in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 104 of 2015, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a 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) avin/- U T