Ranjay Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.69956 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2018 Thana- MAHKAR District- Gaya ====================================================== Ranjay Manjhi, Son of Hari Manjhi, Resident of Village- Kodihra Bhui Toli, Police Station- Mahkar, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Smt. Suman Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 3/ 17-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in Mahkar P.S. Case No. 118 of 2018 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 302 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code, is pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is husband of the deceased.

It has been alleged in the written report that daughter of the informant was married with this petitioner. The petitioner has illicit relation with some another woman, which was always objected by daughter of the informant. She was tortured in her Sasural for aforesaid objection. The informant got information that his daughter along with her two sons have been murdered in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.69956 of 2018(3) dt.17-12-2018 2/2 her Sasural and dead body has been thrown in Paain. The Sessions Judge has mentioned in the impugned order that the cause of death of Anju Devi (daughter of the informant) opined by the doctor to be burning and cause of death of both child due to strangulation. The Doctor has found ante-mortem injuries on the person of Anju Devi. In view of such, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make all efforts to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably, within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Liberty is given to the petitioner to renew his prayer after nine months, if no substantive progress is made in the trial. (Sanjay Priya, J) J. Alam/- Rohit Kr.

U T