← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11891/2019rejected

Raju Kumar Pasi @ Raju Pasi v. The State Of Bihar

2019-05-07Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11891 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-300 Year-2018 Thana- KUDRA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Raju Kumar Pasi @ Raju Pasi Son of Kanhaiya Pasi R/o village- Karma, P.SKudara, District- Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anita Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Kudra P.S. Case No.300 of 2018.

Wife of this petitioner died within few years of her marriage in the house of the petitioner.

Two reasons are alleged for the unnatural death. One is demand of dowry and torture for the same and another is that the petitioner was in extra marital relation with a family member which was opposed by his wife. The case diary reveals that the police has not examined other family members of the informant; rather the neighbors of the informant were examined and they

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11891 of 2019(4) dt.07-05-2019 2/2 simply stated that the victim was being tortured in her matrimonial house.

Informant has supported her allegation before the police. Petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2018. Considering the entire facts of this case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present. Hence, his prayer for bail is refused.

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within nine months, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court below itself.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Banti/Rajan U T