Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36089/2020dismissed

Shambhu Kumar @ Shambhu Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2021-08-18Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36089 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2013 Thana- SARAIYA DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Shambhu Kumar @ Shambhu Paswan, Male, aged about 35 years, son of Jagdish Paswan, resident of Village - Pokhraira, P.S. - Saraiya, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 18-08-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conference.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking that all defects pointed out by the stamp reporter shall be removed, and compliance with the conditions of the notices of this Court with regard to acceptance of e-filing shall be made, without delay immediately upon resumption of normal physical functioning of the Court, and in any event within one month thereof.

3. The petitioner, who is in custody since 19.07.2018, has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Saraiya (Jaitpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 81 of 2013, having earlier been rejected by order dated 04.12.2019 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 55823 of 2019 for the offence alleged under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36089 of 2020(6) dt.18-08-2021 2/2 Sections 498A, 323, 304B, 506 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates his earlier submission to the effect that the petitioner has been implicated merely because he happens to be the husband of the deceased and that his wife died owing to burn injury suffered during cooking.

5. Learned APP appears and has been heard.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any material change in circumstance, this Court is not inclined to take a different view of the matter for grant of bail to the petitioner. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.

7. 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-2 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) pawan/- U T