Pravin Mahto @ Munna v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.19643 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -119 Year- 2015 Thana -PUPRI District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Pravin Mahto @ Munna Son of Niranjan Prasad Mahto, Resident of Village- Doghara, P.S.- Jale, Dist.- Darbhanga at Present Muradpur Dulla, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Panchanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioner seeks bail in Pupri P.S. Case No. 119/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that his daughter Punita was married to Pravin Mahto @ Munna ten years ago. On 16.05.2015, Raja Ram Mahaseth the informant was informed about the illness of his daughter, but later on, when the informant insisted to allow him to talk his daughter, the petitioner is said to have informed that she died. The informant and his son came to the house of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19643 of 2017 (3) dt.21-06-2017 2/3 petitioner, but did not find the dead-body of his daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner informed his father-in-law about the death of his wife on 16.05.2015 and on the same day, the father-in-law and his son came to the house of the petitioner. They also participated in the cremation, but on 18.05.2015, the informant lodged the case making false and frivolous allegation. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the witnesses have stated that the petitioner had cordial relation with his wife and there is no question of demand of dowry and torture. The marriage was solemnized ten years ago.
The son of the deceased was living with his grandfather, although, the informant alleged that Manu Kumar son of the deceased was also missing, but from perusal of the casediary, it appears that the informant and his son made specific allegation that petitioner killed his wife (daughter of the informant) and hurriedly cremated her dead-body. In para 21 of the case-diary, statement of the driver Mohan Sah was recorded who disclosed that the petitioner hired the vehicle and took the dead-body for cremation at Simaria Ghat without giving information to anybody. Same facts have been reiterated by the witnesses Ranjit Kumar and Pappu Kumar.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19643 of 2017 (3) dt.21-06-2017 3/3 petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the deceased died in suspicious condition and the petitioner hurriedly cremated her dead-body, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T