Chandan Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15217 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2020 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani ====================================================== Chandan Mandal Son of Sri Dilip Mandal Resident of Village- Sarsopahi, P.S.- Pandaul, District- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anwar Karim For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Pandaul P.S. Case No. 170 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, this petitioner along with other co-accused persons killed the sister of informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Petitioner is husband of the deceased.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that marriage of petitioner with the deceased was solemnized in the year 2013 and just after marriage both of them went to Kolkata. Petitioner was doing a private job. Both of them were blessed with one daughter and one son and are living happily. Due to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15217 of 2022(2) dt.16-05-2022 2/2 Covid-19 there was lock in the country and company where petitioner was working also got closed, therefore, petitioner, his wife and children came at their village Sarsopahi, Madhubani in the month of June, 2020. Again petitioner came to Kolakata leaving her wife (deceased) at village, so due to anger, she committed suicide. There was no demand of dowry by the petitioner. There is general and omnibus allegation. Petitioner is in custody since 22.12.2021 having no criminal antecedent. Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner is husband of the deceased and deceased died in unnatural circumstance within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T