Sahil Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12765 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2024 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Sahil Ansari Son of Mohammad Ali R/o Amir Khan Tola Ward No.- 12, P.S.- Sugauli, District - East Champaran at Motihari. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 260 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

Prosecution case in short is that daughter of the informant has been done to death at her matrimonial house by her in-laws due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. 4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 13-06-2024. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner's

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12765 of 2025(3) dt.14-05-2025 2/3 counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. There is no specific allegation attributed to the petitioner, rather allegation is general and omnibus in nature. Postmortem report suggests the cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial has commenced and only three witnesses have been examined hitherto. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future.

6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. 7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, specifically taking into account the fact that trial has commenced, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, rejected.

8.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments preferably within a period of four months from today.

9.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12765 of 2025(3) dt.14-05-2025 3/3 prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of four months.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T