Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22730 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -272 Year- 2014 Thana -ARWAL District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Sunil Kumar Son of Bhim Bhagat Resident of village - Budhrabad Murai Tola, Police Station and District - Arwal .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Samir Kumar Bharti For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 272 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code. Chanchala Prakash, the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner in the year 2012 and allegedly, the petitioner was having illicit relationship due to which he used to assault his wife and ultimately, she was killed by the petitioner and other in-laws and her dead body was also made traceless. Submission is of false implication and that earlier no complaint was filed anywhere, as a matter of fact, the wife of the petitioner has received burn injury at the time of cooking, she was

being treated at Nidan Hospital, Mahavir Nagar, Sipara, Patna, her statement was recorded by A.S.I., S.K. Mishra wherein, she has stated that she received injury at the time of cooking, other witnesses have also stated that in presence of her family member including her father she was cremated at Patna and in this regard death certificate was also granted by Patna Municipal Corporation, vide annexure-3 and without any fault the petitioner is suffering in custody since 24.02.2016, other co-accused have already been allowed bail, Chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioner is the husband.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence and, as such, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Arwal in connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 272 of 2014 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and

every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

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