Bhogendra Sharma @ Bhogindra Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.25739 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -39 Year- 2016 Thana -ARER District- MADHUBANI ======================================================
1. Bhogendra Sharma @ Bhogindra Sharma, Son of Late Mahadeo Sharma, Resident of Village- Navtoli (Nagvas), Police Station- Arer, DistrictMadhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 03-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Petitioner is languishing in custody since 11.11.2016 in connection with Arer P.S. Case No. 39/2016, G.R. No. 293/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that her daughter was married to Vishnu Sharma, son of the petitioner three years back and had 11⁄2 year old child. She was tortured and ultimately killed by the father-in-law, petitioner and mother-in-law for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal antecedent and has
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25739 of 2017 (4) dt.03-08-2017 2/2 falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the deceased was living with full dignity in his house and his son Vishnu Sharma was doing a private job at Delhi. He further submits that all the family members of the deceased had taken part in the cremation of the deceased and the First Information Report has been lodged as an afterthought. It is submitted that the independent witness at paragraph 33 of the case diary has not supported the prosecution case and that charge-sheet has already been submitted, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.
However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
Be that as it may, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Ajay Kumar II, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Benipatti, Madhubani, in connection with Arer P.S. Case No. 39/2016, G.R. No. 293/2016.
(Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/- U T