Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29068/2019rejected

Krishna Singh @ Golu Singh @ Krishna Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2019-07-09Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29068 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-355 Year-2018 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas ====================================================== KRISHNA SINGH @ GOLU SINGH @ KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH S/o Bishwanath Singh @ Ghamadi Singh R/o village- Tendawa Boaring, P.S.- Dehri (Nagar), Distt.- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dihri Nagar P.S. Case No. 355 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely been implicated in this case merely because he is husband of the deceased. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. The allegations levelled are general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner has never demanded any dowry nor tortured the deceased ever. Petitioner is in custody since 06.09.2018.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29068 of 2019(4) dt.09-07-2019 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is allegation of killing the deceased against this petitioner and his family members and of hiding the body. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping the wife with full honour and dignity in which this petitioner has failed, and as such, he does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T