Jitendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23761 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2021 Thana- SAKRI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Jitendra Paswan Son Of Ravindra Paswan Resident Of Village- Pandaul Sahwani, Pokhar Tola, Ps- Sakri, Distt- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ratanakar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 09-10-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 304B, 302, 34 of the IPC and Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with coaccused persons is that they committed murder of the informant's daughter due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner is husband of the deceased due to which he has falsely been implicated in this case. The informant is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23761 of 2023(5) dt.09-10-2023 2/2 petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 29.06.2021.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is husband of the deceased and he has full responsibility to keep his wife with proper honour and dignity. As per postmortem report doctor opined cause of death due to hanging.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. From perusal of the progress report, which has been received on 08.09.2023, it appears that out of seven witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and trial court had sought six months time to conclude the trial.

8. Hence, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within its stipulated period of time, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Manishkumar/- U T