Pintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30881 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-379 Year-2021 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Pintu Kumar Son Of Late Sahdeo Paswan Resident Of Village- Fatehpur, Shekhpura Khurd, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 22-11-2022 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.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Belaganj P.S. Case No. 379 of 2021 lodged under Sections 498A, 304(B)/ 34 of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, there is allegation of dowry death by the husband and his family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The allegation of death providing poison is there in the F.I.R. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner is handicap

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30881 of 2022(3) dt.22-11-2022 2/2 but upon specific query that what is the percentage of handicap, the petitioner is silent. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2021 having clean antecedent. Charge sheet has already been filed in this case. Upon specific query whether charge has been framed or not, counsel is unaware about this fact.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is husband and allegation of dowry death is there. Charge sheet has already been filed under Section 498A/ 304B/ 34 of the I.P.C.

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, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail 9 months from today. In the meantime, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

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