Nunulal Rishideo @ Nunulal Reshidev v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35850 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2020 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== NUNULAL RISHIDEO @ NUNULAL RESHIDEV S/o Gajendra Rishideo @ Gajendra Reshidev Resident of Village- Dhigh, P.S.- Murliganj, DistrictMadhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2022 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.
Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Murliganj PS Case No. 97 of 2020 registered under Sections 304 (B) / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner is the husband of the deceased and allegation is that within one month of marriage the daughter of the informant has has been killed by the petitioner and other family members due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has falsely been implicated in this case with oblique
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35850 of 2021(3) dt.24-03-2022 2/2 motive. He further submits that post mortem on the dead body was conducted in which no external injury was found however viscera has been preserved for forensic examination and from perusal of inquest report it appears that the deceased had consumed pesticide.
Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties, taking into consideration the fact that within one month of marriage the daughter of the informant has died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home, allegation is of demand of dowry and torture and there is presumption against the petitioner and other family members under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail is rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after one year from today if the trial does not show any progress.
praful/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U T