Raj Kumar Sao v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10245 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2018 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== Raj Kumar Sao, aged about 20 years (Male), Son of Late Bal Kishun Sao Resident of Village - Kadirganj, P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-08-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 699 of 2018 arising out of Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 142 of 2018 registered for offences under sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per prosecution case, the victim lady, namely, Ranu Devi, was married with the present petitioner on 5th of May, 2018 and at the time of marriage, sufficient gifts including cash amounting Rs. 1,00,000/-, motorcycle, T.V., Sewing machine, ornaments and house hold articles were given. Allegation has been made that for the purpose of additional amount of dowry, the victim lady was killed and, in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10245 of 2020(4) dt.26-08-2020 2/2 order to disappear the evidence, her body was put to fire. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased lady and there is no explanation from the side of the petitioner as to how the lady was disappeared and there is specific allegation of killing and burning the body of the deceased to ashes. Looking to the nature of allegation as also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of 1.5 years from the date of the normalcy of the court proceeding.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U T