Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22568/2017dismissed

Sajabuddin @ Saja Uddin v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-30Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22568 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -112 Year- 2016 Thana -DIGHALBANK District- KISANGANJ ======================================================

1. Sajabuddin @ Saja Uddin Son of Late Md. Kalu Resident of Village - Baniyadgangi, Police Station - Dighalbank in the district of Kishanganj. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Dighalbank P.S. Case No. 112 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is of killing the deceased, who happens to be his wife.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and in fact, the deceased died her natural death as she was suffering from illness and except suspicion, there is nothing to show the involvement of the petitioner in his death. Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.11.2016.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the dead body of the deceased was found inside

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22568 of 2017 (3) dt.30-06-2017 2/2 the house of the petitioner and there were some injuries also on the body of the deceased.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of offence, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, his application for regular bail is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months and if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself and if any such application is filed, the court below after considering the materials available on record at that time, shall pass an appropriate order, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T