Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24218/2018dismissed

Manjeet Kumar Rai @ Manchit Rai @ Manjeet Kumar @ Manjeet Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2018-05-10Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24218 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2016 Thana- SHEOHAR District- Sheohar ====================================================== Manjeet Kumar Rai @ Manchit Rai @ Manjeet Kumar @ Manjeet Rai S/o Mahindra Rai @ Mahendra Rai, R/o Vill.- Tajpur, P.S.- Sheohar , DistrictSheohar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sheohar P.S. case No.177 of 2016 registered under Sections 498A, 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar.

Allegation is that the accused persons including the petitioner committed murder of the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2018 and has got no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24218 of 2018(3) dt.10-05-2018 2/2 against the petitioner. The petitioner has been made accused due to mistake of fact. The matter has already been compromised between the parties. There is no substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in the present case. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He is the husband of the deceased. The witnesses in paragraphs 21, 38, 46, 56 and 57 of the case diary have supported the allegations made in the F.I.R. Section 304B of the I.P.C. is not compoundable offence where the compromise between the parties can be considered. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to granted bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected. The court below is directed to take all necessary steps to expedite the trial.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T