Dharmendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25180 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2020 Thana- NAYAGAON District- Saran ====================================================== Dharmendra Kumar Son of Jagdish Rai @ Jagdish Prasad Yadav Resident of Village - Gopalpur, P.s.- Nayagaon, Distt.- Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 10-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 162 of 2020 under sections 304B, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation in the FIR, lodged on 18.10.2020, is that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner herein in 2016 and the informant had given Rs. 2,00,000/- as also gold ornaments at the time of marriage but could not fulfill the demand of motorcycle for which she was regularly subjected to torture. It has further come in the FIR that on 17.10.2022, the informant received phone call about the his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25180 of 2022(2) dt.10-08-2022 2/2 daughter being assaulted and later it came to notice that she was burnt by pouring kerosene oil. On the basis of the said allegation, the present FIR came to be instituted. As narrated the case was lodged on 18.10.2020, the petitioner being the husband, his wife was no more but finally chose to walk in the judicial custody only on 14.2.2022 (as stated in para-12 of the bail application) as also the fact that specific allegation of killing due to non-fulfillment of the demand of motorcycle has been made against him, this Court is not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T