Arvind Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15579 of 2016 (3) dt.20-05-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15579 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -81 Year- 2014 Thana -DHARHARA District- MUNGER ======================================================

1. Arvind Singh son of Late Madari Singh @ Jagdeo Singh, Resident of village- Mohanpur, P.s.- Dharhara, District- Munger.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dharhara P.S. Case No. 81 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further Section 304B IPC was added.

Allegedly, dead body of a woman kept in a gunny bag was recovered from a pond and accordingly, on the basis of fardbeyan of Chaukidar the case was registered. During investigation the dead body was identified as of the wife of the petitioner and fardbeyan of Dulari Devi was recorded wherein it is alleged that Soni Devi, her daughter, was married to the petitioner one year ago and allegedly, she was being tortured and assaulted by the petitioner and other in-laws and ultimately she was killed and her dead body was thrown after keeping the same in gunny

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15579 of 2016 (3) dt.20-05-2016 bag in a pond.

Submission is of false implication and that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, the dead body was not identified properly, the petitioner was not married with that lady, there is no such evidence and without any fault he is suffering in custody since 11.07.2014.

Learned APP seriously opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the witnesses during investigation have supported the allegation that motorcycle and mobile were being demanded by the petitioner and other in-laws and due to non-fulfillment she was killed.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

However, let the trial be expedited and concluded as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T