Md. Tabarak v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18142 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-488 Year-2020 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Md. Tabarak Son of Md. Mustufa @ Md. Mustuf Resident of Village - Sihe, Ward No. 13, P.S. - Supaul, District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 08.05.2023, in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 788 of 2020 (corresponding to Trial No. 211 of 2022) FIR dated 13.07.2020 registered for the offence under Sections 363, 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, after the marriage of the informant's sister with the petitioner, the petitioner and his family members started to assault the sister of the informant on the demand of dowry.
4. Earlier, the petitioner has moved for his prayer for grant of his anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 4709 of 2021 but the same was got rejected vide order dated 29.06.2022 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and again the petitioner moved for his prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18142 of 2025(3) dt.02-05-2025 2/2 for regular bail in Cr. Misc. No. 233 of 2024 vide order dated 19.07.2024 by this Court
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it appears from the present case that the after the disappearance of the victim, the petitioner did not take any step to find his wife (victim) and apart from that the impugned order reveals that the case was fixed for statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but the petitioner's side filed and application due to this reason the trial has not concluded.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand,6 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the report of the trial Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 788 of 2020 (corresponding to Trial No. 211 of 2022) pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Supaul.
8. Prayer is refused.
9. However the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Jyoti Kumari/- U T