Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30449/2022bail rejected

Jamuna Chaudhary @ Jamuna Kumar @ Yamuna Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2023-01-10Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30449 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2022 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya ====================================================== JAMUNA CHAUDHARY @ JAMUNA KUMAR @ YAMUNA CHAUDHARY, Son Of Late Vilash Chaudhary @ Late Ram Bilash Chaudhry, R/O Village- Yashpur (Kalak Bigha), P.S.- Amash, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 10-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 21 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the petitioner (husband) solemnized marriage with the deceased in 2014. The allegation is that the petitioner and his family members have been torturing her and finally on 23.01.2022, they have strangulated the victim. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having clean antecedents. He is in custody since 25.01.2022. It is also submitted that the victim was not in proper frame of mind and, therefore, she has committed suicide. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30449 of 2022(3) dt.10-01-2023 2/2 Considering the rival submissions, the material in the case diary that death has occurred due to asphyxia, as also the fact that petitioner is husband and death has occurred in the matrimonial home , under such circumstances wherein he was primarily responsible for the safety and honour of the victim, this Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner's prayer for bail, for the present. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- U T