Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36531/2024rejected

Santosh Das v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-04Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36531 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2023 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Santosh Das SON OF LATE LAKSHMAN DAS VILLAGE- GOUDA, PSSAHEBGANJ, DIST- MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Smita Kumari, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Adv.

For the Infomant :

Mr. Yugal Kishore, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 152 of 2023 dated 14.04.2023 registered for the offence/s punishable u/s 304B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have killed the informant's daughter by hanging due to non-fulfillment of demand of Apache motorcycle as dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36531 of 2024(2) dt.04-07-2024 2/2 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner never demanded any dowry nor tortured the deceased. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail petition of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) guddukr/- U T