Sonu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21959 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-324 Year-2019 Thana- GOPALPUR DistrictPatna ====================================================== SONU RAM Son of Bal Kishun Ram Resident of Village - Sijinchak, P.S.- Gopalpur, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. J.K. Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Hare Krishna Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 15-10-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conference. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that all defects pointed out by the stamp reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately upon resumption of normal physical functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month thereof. Learned counsel for the State states that he has no objection in this regard and the matter be taken up on merits in view of the stated urgency.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2019 in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 324 of 2019 for the offences alleged under Sections 304(B)/34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with killing of the informant's daughter, merely because he happens to be the husband of the deceased having been married in the year 2014. Other co-accused Bal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21959 of 2020(3) dt.15-10-2020 2/2 Kishun Ram and Vasanti Devi @ Shanti Devi who are father-inlaw and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 11087 of 2020. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the informant appear and opposes the bail petition, submitting that there is direct accusation against the petitioner of having killed his wife. It is submitted that the petitioner was interested in solemnizing another marriage inasmuch as the deceased had given birth three girl children of whom two had also allegedly been killed by the accused persons.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T