Sheo Shankar Sahni @ Shiv Shankar Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29032 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-602 Year-2018 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== SHEO SHANKAR SAHNI @ SHIV SHANKAR SAHANI Son of Lalan Sahni @ Lalan Choudhari Resident of Village Nadda Khekhariya Tola, P.S. Bagaha Bhairoganj, District- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mitali For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay 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 Bagaha Bhairoganj P.S. Case No. 602 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely because he is husband of the deceased. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Petitioner and his parents were not at home at the time of occurrence. Petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2018.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29032 of 2019(4) dt.09-07-2019 2/2 opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation of committing murder of his wife against this petitioner by pressing her neck. During investigation, witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping his wife with full honour and dignity in which he failed, and as such, he does not deserve to be granted to 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