Ajit Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32381 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2022 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== AJIT TIWARI SON OF MARKANDEY TIWARI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PATESAR, PS- CHAND, DISTT- KAIMUR AT BHABUA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 12-07-2023 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Chand P.S. Case No. 274 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 10.09.2022 by the informant, Radheshyam Pandey.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.09.22 a written complaint was lodged by the informant Radheshyam Pandey in Police Station Chand that the marriage of the informant's daughter Reena Devi with the applicant/accused Ajit Tiwari was solemnised in the year 2004. However, the accused Ajit Tiwari had a relationship with a woman for the last two years, with whom he used to talk on the phone regularly and after selling the gold ornaments of the informant's daughter Reena Devi, used to go out with her for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32381 of 2023(2) dt.12-07-2023 2/2 two to four everyday. Upon return, he used to drink alcohol and threaten to kill the lady.

Informant received the information about the assault, he went there and tried to seek the help of the administration. On 09.09.2022 at 1:00 pm, Markdey Tiwari informed him on phone that his daughter has died. On information, the informant went to the place and found that the accused had killed her daughter and tied her throat with a ceiling fan to hide the evidence.

Considering the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner, the husband, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Kiran/Neha/- U T