Pramod Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32331 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-344 Year-2021 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Pramod Ram Son of Rameshwar Ram, Resident of Village - Meenapur, Ward No.- 09, Police Station - Meenapur, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-07-2024 Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail who is in custody since 03.12.2023, in connection with Meenapur P.S. Case No. 344 of 2021, FIR dated 20.09.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

According to the prosecution case, the daughter of the informant was subjected to regular torture and abuse by her inlaws due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. It is further alleged that when the informant's daughter stopped receiving his calls, he suspected something ominous and visited his daughter's matrimonial home, where he found her dead and suspects that his daughter's in-laws have murdered his daughter by strangulating

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32331 of 2024(4) dt.19-07-2024 2/2 her neck.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the ground that petitioner is husband of the deceased and the allegation levelled in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. 5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand on the basis of materials available on record and case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation levelled in the FIR is supported by medical evidence and apart from that the victim has received three external injuries, which suggests that petitioner and other family members had assaulted her before committing the crime in question and petitioner is husband of the deceased. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Meenapur P.S. Case No. 344 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 7.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T