Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23148/2020bail rejected

Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-09-07Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23148 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2019 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== SUNIL KUMAR Son of Bhutta Rai @ Rambriksha Rai Resident of VillageKamman Chapra, P.S.-Vaishali, District-Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shakti Suman Kumar For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-09-2020 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Vaishali P.S. Case No. 159 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution case in brief is that the daughter of informant was married with this petitioner three years ago. After marriage, the accused persons including this petitioner started demanding dowry and subjected the daughter of informant to mental and physical torture. Ultimately, on 30.04.2019, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23148 of 2020(2) dt.07-09-2020 2/2 informant got information that his daughter was done to death by the accused persons.

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has committed no offence. Petitioner was not present at the time and place of occurrence. Petitioner was at Andhra Pradesh for earning his livelihood. The doctor has not found any external injury on the person of deceased.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

It appears that the death of deceased occurred in other than the normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage at her sasural and petitioner is the husband of deceased.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T