Shafi Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28802 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-837 Year-2021 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Shafi Alam S/o Md. Kasim, Resident of Mohalla - Vishunganj, P.S. - Jehanabad, Dist.- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anita Kumari Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 16-11-2022 Let the defect, if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 837 of 2021 lodged under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C.

As per prosecution case, the father of the informant alleged that the petitioner who is the husband of the deceased has killed his daughter by strangulating her neck for demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further submits that antecedent of petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 18.12.2021. He also submits that the death of wife of petitioner has taken place under unfortunate circumstances

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28802 of 2022(3) dt.16-11-2022 2/2 for which he is not responsible at all. Learned counsel further submits that no purpose shall be solved keeping the petitioner in custody. He also submits that petitioner is ready to support in trial and also ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that it is a cold blooded murder done by the petitioner to his wife for demand of dowry. He further submits that charge has been framed, examination of 3 witnesses have already been completed and there is every likelihood about the conclusion of trial within couple of months. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, therefore, bail application of petitioner is hereby rejected, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after one year from the date of passing of this order.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) ravishankar/- U T