Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13841 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-448 Year-2019 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== PANKAJ KUMAR, S/O SHIVJEE MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE- MATHURA, P.S- BIDUPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate Ms. Keertika Sakshi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 12-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case no. 448 of 2019 registered under sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that she married her daughter to the petitioner herein. Soon after the marriage, the petitioner started making demand of Rs.1 lac. She was physically tortured by the accused persons and ultimately done to death. Her body was disposed of.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason of his being the husband of the deceased. The allegations are false and concocted. Referring to the FIR it is submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13841 of 2024(2) dt.12-03-2024 2/2 the informant herself states therein that the petitioner left for Delhi. The informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution side having realised the falsity of the case has entered into a compromise. The petitioner is in custody since 12.9.2023 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State who submits that in the case of the year 2019, the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, continued to abscond for nearly four years.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR against the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased together with the fact that in an FIR registered on 7.11.2019, the petitioner surrendered in the learned Court below only on 12.9.2023, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T