Pintu Kumar @ Mantu Kumar @ Pintu Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11476 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2021 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== Pintu Kumar @ Mantu Kumar @ Pintu Chaudhary S/O Chhotelal Chaudhary Resident of Village- Masuda, P.S.- Warisliganj, District- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 18-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 159 of 2021 instituted for the offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. As per F.I.R., it is a case of causing death by the petitioner of his wife by setting fire due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. The petitioner is husband of the deceased due to which he has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent languishing in judicial custody since 13.10.2022. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is husband of the deceased and he must be responsible to keep his wife with proper

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11476 of 2023(5) dt.18-10-2023 2/2 behavior and dignity. Deceased died within seven years of marriage. The postmortem report of the deceased, annexed with the case diary also corroborates the prosecution case wherein, doctor opined that the cause of death is due to extensive thermal burn. It is further submitted that during investigation witnesses of this case have also supported the prosecution case.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within period of nine months failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T