Raj Kumar @ Raja Singh @ Raj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22291 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2022 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad ====================================================== RAJ KUMAR @ RAJA SINGH @ RAJ KUMAR SINGH S/O JEETENDRA SINGH @ JITENDRA SINGH R/O VIllage- Dalkarma, P.S- Barun, Distt.- Arangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 17-08-2023 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Barun P.S. Case No.155 of 2022 instituted under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the IPC lodged on 19.04.2022 by the informant Bikram Kumar Singh.

The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner was married to the victim lady in 2020 and a son was also born on the said wedlock but she was tortured for dowry. On 19.04.2022, the informant came to know about the killing of the victim lady as also the cremation without information. Accordingly, the FIR.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that a report was called for according to which the same is pending for prosecution evidence and the next date of hearing is 16.08.2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22291 of 2023(4) dt.17-08-2023 2/2 Learned APP on the other hand submits that there has been specific allegation against the petitioner and Section 201 of the IPC is also there as the body was cremated without information and in that process postmortem could also not be held.

Taking into account the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner, he being the husband, the marriage took place in 2020 itself, for the present this Court is not inclined to extend him privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected.

In view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year from today.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan U T