Margub Kafil v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5240 of 2017 (2) dt.10-03-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5240 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2014 Thana -AMAUR District- PURNIA ====================================================== Margub Kafil, son of Md. Mushtaque, resident of Village- Basol, P.S.- Amour, District- Purnia.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ataur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 10-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amour P.S. Case No. 101 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Gajala Ruhi Fatima, the daughter of the informant, was married to the petitioner on 16.06.2002 and out of wedlock there is a son aged four years. Allegedly, the petitioner and his family members used to demand money from Gajala Ruhi Fatima and for that she was being tortured and assaulted, they also caused threats to kill her and thereafter, the petitioner performed second marriage and then under criminal conspiracy killed her and threw the dead body in Kankai River. The petitioner informed the informant that his daughter is going to her naihar.

Submission is of false implication and that no offence as

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5240 of 2017 (2) dt.10-03-2017 alleged is made out, there was cordial relation between the petitioner and his wife, the petitioner never demanded anything from the informant or in-laws. Trial is going on and all the six chargesheet witnesses have already been examined and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that against the petitioner there is serious allegation and he is the husband, the trial is likely to be concluded very soon. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by keeping the same on priority basis, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, may renew his prayer of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T