Pappu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24900 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2020 Thana- NOWKOTHI GARHPURA DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== PAPPU KUMAR Son of Late Mishra Kumar Resident of Village - Rampur, Parori East, P.S. - Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi, At present Resident of P.H.C. Nawkothi, P.S. - Nawkothi, District - Begusarai. .. ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 29-11-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 498A, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to which section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was added subsequently.

As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the informant was done to death by the accused persons including the petitioner herein for lifting the earlier case lodged by the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased. The mother-in-law has been enlarged on bail. Although it is true that a case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was registered in the year 2018, however the differences having been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24900 of 2021(3) dt.29-11-2021 2/2 settled between the parties, the petitioner and the deceased were living and leading a happy married life. It was the daughter of the informant having attempted suicide, got burnt and the petitioner in an attempt to save her was also injured. It was the petitioner who informed his mother-in-law about the occurrence. He took her to the hospital on 4.9.2020 where she succumbed to her injuries on 12.9.2020. The petitioner is in custody since 14.9.2010.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the relationship between the parties was strained would be evident from the contents of the FIR itself.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U