Bikrama Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38400 of 2018 Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -6 Year- 2018 Thana -CHANPATIA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Bikrama Mahto, Son of Bala Mahto, Resident of Village- Tikulia, Police Station- Chanpatia, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastva For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP For the Informant : Mrs. Archana Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Chanpatia P.S.Case No.06 of 2018 pending in the court of ACJMV, Bettiah, West Champaran registered for an offence under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC.

This petitioner is husband of deceased. As per FIR, allegation is that this petitioner used to torture and assault his wife in connection with demand of Rs.5,00000/- or a Bolero jeep. It has been submitted that the marriage of petitioner was solemnized with the deceased for about 12 years ago and from the said wed-lock he has been blessed with three sons. Out of them,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38400 of 2018 (3) dt.23-07-2018 2/2 one son is residing at the place of the informant and two were with the deceased. On the date of occurrence, she died due to burn injuries as at the time of cooking meal she came under the flame of fire and received severe burn injuries. The petitioner and his villagers attempted to save her life but she could not survive. The petitioner informed his in-laws over mobile and thereafter the dead body was cremated.

The learned APP as well as informant opposed the submissions.

On perusal of the FIR, I find that the specific allegation against this petitioner is that he used to torture and assault the deceased since the date of marriage. In course of investigation, the witnesses have supported this fact. The death occurred in the house of the petitioner in unnatural way.

Considering the specific allegation of committing murder of the deceased by this petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him bail. Prayer is rejected.

(Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./- U T