Sagar Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40098 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-944 Year-2022 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SAGAR DAS Son of Late Sita Ram Das Resident of Village - Kolhua, Chhapatwa, P.S.- Saraiya, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hari Kishore Thakur For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Kishor Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 21-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of killing the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of further dowry demand.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. He submitted that there is no consistent evidence has come against the petitioner. Marriage was solemnized between the deceased and the petitioner about 15 years ago and petitioner is blessed with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40098 of 2023(3) dt.21-08-2023 2/2 three children out of the deceased's wedlock. He further submitted that most of the prosecution evidence has been examined during trial and the trial is likely to be concluded. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 30.12.2022.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the application for bail and submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he has full responsibility to keep his wife (deceased) with full honour and dignity. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within four months, without fail, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U T