Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25198/2024dismissed

Sarvajeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-24Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25198 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2022 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sarvajeet Kumar S/o Bhola Singh R/o Village- Nayakpur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Siddharth Harsh For the Informant :

Mr.Dineshwar Mishra Mr. R.K. Goswami For the State Mr. J.N. Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-07-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Chenari P.S. Case No. 332 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation, the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner on 28.11.2021, and the petitioner along with his family members is said to have inflicted cruelty upon daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- cash and a motorcycle. On 06.11.2022, they committed murder of the deceased and hanged the dead body with the ceiling fan with intention to depict the case of suicide.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25198 of 2024(3) dt.24-07-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has also submitted that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent and is under custody since 15.11.2022.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accused persons committed murder of the deceased within one year of the marriage for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. They have further submitted that the trial is going on and the witnesses examined during the trial have fully supported the allegation.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T