Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27818/2024dismissed

Ajit Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-12Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27818 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-717 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ajit Singh SON OF Mainejar Singh RESIDENT OF VILLAGEBAHURUPIYA, PS- TURKAULIYA, DIST- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Rashmi Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 717 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 498A, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. All the F.I.R. named accused persons including this petitioner, on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, in furtherance of the common intention are said to have committed murder of the daughter of the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and he has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27818 of 2024(4) dt.12-07-2024 2/2 The petitioner is husband of the deceased. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. Petitioner has neither made any dowry demand nor tormented the deceased over the demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 30.08.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the nature of offence as well as the fact that the petitioner is husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T