Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36402/2020dismissed

Akhilesh Das @ Akhelesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2021-03-22Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36402 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2010 Thana- SALAIYA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Akhilesh Das @ Akhelesh Ram Son of Late Rajdeo Das Resident of VillageMangar Bigha (Ghughi), P.S.- Salaiya, District- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 22-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The petitioner, who is in custody since 20.03.2018, has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Salaiya P.S. Case No. 40 of 2010 for the offences alleged under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code having earlier been rejected by this Court by order dated 18.09.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44674 of 2018.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated merely because he happens to be the husband of the victim lady. It is further submitted that in fact he was not present in the village at the time of occurrence as he was working in Rajasthan. The petitioner has already suffered more than two and half years in custody since 18.09.2018 and claims clean antecedents.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36402 of 2020(4) dt.22-03-2021 2/2

4. Learned APP appears and has been heard.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court sees no reason to take a different view in the matter of granting bail to the petitioner. The bail petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T