Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33234/2023rejected

Dharmendra Vishwakarma v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-07Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33234 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2022 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya ====================================================== DHARMENDRA VISHWAKARMA SON OF NAND VISHWAKARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MATHI, PS- TEKARI, DISTT- GAYA, BIHAR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uday Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 07-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of pouring kerosene oil upon the sister of the informant and set her in a blaze, due to which she succumbed to burn injury.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. He submitted that informant is no eyewitness. The husband of the deceased has not made accused in this case and the Investigating Officer has not taken the statement of the deceased's husband. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 22.06.2022.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33234 of 2023(3) dt.07-08-2023 2/2

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and he is brother-in-law of the deceased. He submitted that there is specific allegation of set the deceased on fire is against the petitioner and other co-accused. From the perusal of the Postmortem report, the doctor opined that the death was caused by Septicaemia, Toxemia and shock as a result of burning (80% approx), which corroborates the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U T