Love Kumar Singh @ Chhotku v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16849 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Love Kumar Singh @ Chhotku, Son of Late Mahadev Singh @ Mahade Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Sahpur, P.S.- Kochadhaman, DistrictKishanganj ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Meena Devi D/O- Rudranand Bahardar R/O- P.S.- Terhagachh, DistrictKishanganj ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar- A.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 :

Mr. Abhitabh Kumar- Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 12-06-2020 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant through video conferencing.

Petitioner happens to be husband of the informant and is languishing in jail custody since 09.01.2020 in connection with Kishanganj Mahila P. S. Case No.01 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498-A, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16849 of 2020(2) dt.12-06-2020 2/2 petitioner is ready to keep the informant with full honour and dignity and so far as the allegation of second marriage of petitioner is concerned, the same is incorrect and as a matter of fact, petitioner has not solemnized his second marriage. Learned counsel appearing for the informant opposed the prayer pointing out that the impugned order goes to show that the petitioner has already solemnized his second marriage. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and, accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

However, learned lower Court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the trial Court fails to conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months without any laches on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court itself.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) vikash/- U T