Ranjit Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11859 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -45 Year- 2014 Thana -PARSAUNI District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Ranjit Sah Son of Mauje Sah R/o Village Parsauni Mailbar, P.S. Parsauni, District Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh No.1(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 02-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner is the husband of the victim and is an accused of Parsauni P.S. Case No. 45 of 2014 registered under section 304-B IPC lodged by the father of the victim. The victim was married to the petitioner four years ago whereafter the petitioner and his other family members started torturing her. The allegation further is that due to non fulfillment of the demand of dowry she was killed and her dead body was deserted. Counsel for he petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2014. Some witnesses have stated in course of investigation that the deceased was mentally sick and used to flee away from the matrimonial home. There is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11859 of 2015 (4) dt.02-07-2015 2/2 no direct evidence to incriminate the petitioner in the crime. Learned APP, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that within four years of marriage the victim was done to death in suspicious circumstances and the dead body was thrown near the railway track. In the post mortem report the doctor found the cut injury on the dead body of the deceased. Some witnesses have supported the apprehension which has been raised by the informant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 09.06.2014, I direct the court below to endeavour to examine all the prosecution witnesses within ten months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the petitioner shall have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U