Md. Ajaj @ Md. Ezaj, v. The State Of Bihar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33187 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2018 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Md. Ajaj @ Md. Ezaj, Son of Md. Esha @ Mohammad Isha, Resident of Village - Aadharpur, Police Station - Muffasil, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad For the Opposite Party :
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 218 of 2018, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner is the husband of the deceased, who is in custody since 19.06.2020. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the deceased was earlier married to the petitioner's elder brother and after the said marriage was dissolved, the petitioner and the deceased got married. It is further alleged that the petitioner started making demands for dowry. Subsequently, she died in unnatural circumstances. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33187 of 2020(4) dt.19-01-2021 2/3 petitioner has submitted that the case of the prosecution does not make out a case of demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. He has further submitted that some of the independent witnesses, examined during the course of investigation, have not supported the case of the prosecution of demand of dowry or torture therefor. He has also submitted that the postmortem report does not disclose any ante-mortem injuries.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2020 and there is nothing specific collected in course of investigation to demonstrate that there was demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased, in my opinion, case for grant of regular bail is made out since charge-sheet has been submitted and the petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2020.
Considering the above, this application is allowed. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-II, Samastipur, in Samastipur Muffasil P.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33187 of 2020(4) dt.19-01-2021 3/3 Case No. 218 of 2018.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U T