Ran Vijay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18254 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2022 Thana- RAMPUR CHAURAM DistrictJehanabad ====================================================== Ran Vijay Kumar S/O Lalan Singh @ Lalan Yadav Resident Of Village-Devi Bigha, P.S.-Rampur Chauram, District-Arwal ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manisha Prakash For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 27-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Rampur Chauram P.S. Case No. 26 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he committed murder of the informant's sister in connivance with his family members. It is further alleged that the petitioner along with his family members used to abuse, torture and assault the deceased. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case. It is further submitted that there is no prior complain in respect of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18254 of 2023(4) dt.27-07-2023 2/2 harassment and assault. It is also submitted that the petitioner solemnized marriage with the deceased eight years ago. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 21.07.2022. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that during the investigation, witness supported the prosecution version and the postmortem report also suggests that the cause of death is due to smothering leading to Asphyxia. It is also submitted that the petitioner being the husband of the deceased, had full responsibility to keep his wife well with dignity and honour which he did not do so.

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.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a year.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T