Pachu Sao @ Pachu Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21752 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2015 Thana- HALSI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Pachu Sao @ Pachu Sah son of Late Mahadev Sao @ Mahadev Sah VillageTearhat PS- halsi District- lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md Irshad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial no.325 of 2022, arising out of Halsi P.S. Case no.163 of 2015 registered under sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner herein in the year 2015. It is stated by the informant that soon after the marriage, the accused persons started making a demand of dowry by way of a motorcycle. The assault and torture continued and ultimately she was done to death by pouring kerosene oil on her body and lighting her up.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21752 of 2024(2) dt.04-04-2024 2/2 being the husband of the deceased. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Inspite of the petitioner having remained in custody since 5.2.2022, the trial has still not concluded.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the contents of the petition, it transpires that the allegation against the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased is of having burnt the daughter of the informant by pouring kerosene oil and of having disposed of her body. It further transpires that in a case of the year 2015, the petitioner continued to abscond for more than 6 years till he was taken into custody on 5.2.2022. In the facts of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

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