Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40100/2016dismissed

Mahesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-19Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40100 of 2016 (2) dt.19-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40100 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -172 Year- 2015 Thana -PATAHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Mahesh Ram Son of Bilash Ram Resident of Village- Mahamadi, P.S. Patahi, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Bachan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 19-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Deceased died at her sasural within three years of her marriage and for that, an explanation has been made on behalf of the petitioner that she was ill since before her death. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though there happens to be allegation attributed with regard to demand and further torture having meted out to the deceased on that very score are palpable false.

Furthermore, it has also been submitted that from the written report itself it is apparent that on 30.10.2015 at 6:00 PM informant had already received information at the end of the petitioner but, instant case has been registered on 31.10.2015, at about 5:00 PM and the delay has not been explained. So, the false implication of the petitioner could not be ruled out. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40100 of 2016 (2) dt.19-09-2016 submitted that he has been categorically alleged to have made demand and ultimately murdered the deceased on having the demand not fulfilled. Considering status of the petitioner to be that of husband and further, considering the conduct as is found exposed from the order impugned which has been passed after going through the case diary and I do not see it a fit case for grant of bail. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) siddharth/- U T