Sandeep Soni @ Sandeep Kumar Soni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21224 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2022 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Sandeep Soni @ Sandeep Kumar Soni S/O Ashok Soni Resident of VillageUttar Mohalla, Ward No.- 12, Mirganj, P.S.- Mirganj District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP For the Informant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 22.03.2022 in connection with S. Tr. No. 447 of 2022 arising out of Mirganj P.S. Case No. 71 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 26.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to prosecution case, all the accused persons have killed the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21224 of 2023(3) dt.13-07-2023 2/2 petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the ground that the petitioner is husband of the deceased. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. that there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is supported by the medical evidence (postmortem report ). Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with S. Tr. No. 447 of 2022 arising out of Mirganj P.S. Case No. 71 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, V, Gopalganj at Gopalganj.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T