Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40463/2021bail rejected

Rohit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-28Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40463 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2020 Thana- KUTUMBA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Rohit Kumar Singh S/o Sumendra Singh R/o village- Chakuwa, P.S.- Kutumba, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in Kutumba P.S. Case No. 158 of 2020 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the FIR, this petitioner along with other FIR named accused persons killed the daughter of informant by pressing her neck due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been made accused in this case only because he is husband of the deceased. Petitioner never demanded any dowry and nor the deceased was tortured by him for demand of dowry. In fact, deceased died due to illness. As per the postmortem

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40463 of 2021(3) dt.28-01-2022 2/2 report, the doctor has not found any external injury on the person of deceased. Cause of death has not been ascertained as yet. There is general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2020 having no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner is husband of the deceased and deceased died in unnatural circumstance within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T