Bipin Sao @ Vipin Sao @ Vipin Saw v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17747 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2023 Thana- PAUTHU District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Bipin Sao @ Vipin Sao @ Vipin Saw Son Of Bhuneshwar Sao @ Bhuvaeshwar Saw R/O-Beri, P.S.-Pauthu, Distt.-Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 26-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case registered in connection with Pauthu P.S. Case No. 103 of 2023 for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, daughter of the informant was married to petitioner in the year 2017 and soon after marriage, accused persons started torturing her and ultimately she was being killed by the accused persons on 19.08.2003. On information, informant went to her sasuram and saw that the dead body of his daughter upon which sharp cut injuries on her head and face were present.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only because he is husband of the deceased. There is no prior

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17747 of 2024(3) dt.26-04-2024 2/2 complaint in respect of torturing by any of the accused persons at her matrimonial home. At the time of occurrence, petitioner was not in his village rather he came to his village from Punjab after hearing the news of death of his wife. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and languishing in judicial custody since 3.12.2023.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant and submitted that postmortem report corroborates the prosecution story. Doctor opined cause of death due to injuries cause sever hemorrhagic and neurogenic shock, CR, failure and ultimately death caused by hard and blunt substance. During investigation, several witnesses have supported the prosecution case

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U