Krishna Sudama Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33289 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-465 Year-2020 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== KRISHNA SUDAMA THAKUR S/o Jai Ram Thakur R/o villageBengalidih, P.S.- Sheghati (Dobhi), District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajni Kant Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-01-2023 Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State in virtual court proceedings. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sherghati (Dobhi) P.S. Case No. 465 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, petitioner and others poured kerosene oil on the body of informant's sister and set her on fire and during the course of treatment she died. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2021 and bears no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the petitioner is quite

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33289 of 2022(3) dt.13-01-2023 2/2 innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case as he is husband of the deceased.

The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is allegation to set ablaze the victim by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body and the same is supported by the postmortem report. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner coupled with postmortem report as well as material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order to the court concerned. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) alok/- U T