Md. Shakir Darzee @ Md. Shakir Darji v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25712 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2018 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== MD. SHAKIR DARZEE @ MD. SHAKIR DARJI Son of Md. Israil Darji Resident of Village- Parsa, P.S.- Sursand, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjeet Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-09-2020 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 and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sursand P.S. Case No. 19 of 2018, registered for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that the daughter of informant was married with this petitioner in the year 2013. It is alleged that the daughter of the informant was not blessed with any child and for this reason, she was subjected to cruelty and torture by the accused persons including this petitioner. The accused persons also used to demand motorcycle in dowry. Ultimately,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25712 of 2020(2) dt.30-09-2020 2/2 on 05.02.2018, the daughter of informant was done to death due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner is the husband of deceased. The deceased died due to ailment. Petitioner used to reside in Delhi for his livelihood. Petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2020 having clean antecedent. It appears that deceased died at her sasural within seven years of her marriage and petitioner is husband of the deceased.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that petitioner is husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T