← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8470/2020bail rejected

Umesh Rai @ Umesh Ray v. The State Of Bihar

2020-11-05Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8470 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2009 Thana- DHURAIYA District- Banka ====================================================== Umesh Rai @ Umesh Ray, Son of Pritam Ray, Resident of Village - Bhelay, Chandrapura (Chaurpura), P.S.- Dhoriya, Distt - Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-11-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the present case, the petitioner is seeking bail in connection with Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 73 of 2009, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498 (A), 323, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code was added.

The allegation has been made that the petitioner used to torture the victim physically and mentally and treated her with cruelty. On the fateful day, the present petitioner caught hold her and he wanted to push her in the stove. When the stove could not lit, then he put the hot water meant for boiling of rice on her, caused severe injuries, whereafter, she was carried to hospital where after 8-9 days, she died.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8470 of 2020(7) dt.05-11-2020 2/2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the marriage was solemnized about 31 years ago and the case has wrongly been instituted against the petitioner. But, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of restoration of normal court proceeding.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T