Mintu Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40405 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2022 Thana- BARURAJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MINTU RAI S/O GANPAT RAI R/O Village- Mataiya, P.S- Baruraj, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kalyan Shankar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Baruraj P.S. Case No. 217 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The daughter of the informant is alleged to have been killed by the petition on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner happens to be brother-in-law of the deceased and he has not played any role in the alleged occurrence. He further submits that on bare perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that there is no specific allegation of assault or any overt act is attributed to the petitioner and merely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40405 of 2023(4) dt.21-09-2023 2/2 on the ground of suspicion, he has been made accused in this case. Moreover, co-accused persons having more of less similar allegation has already been granted bail by the court below itself. He further submits that the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet in this case against the petitioner. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 09.12.2022. Learned A.P.P. for the State on the basis of material available on record and the case diary vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is sufficient material on record to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and the postmortem report also suggest that the deceased has received antemortem injury on her body. The witnesses have also supported the prosecution version which is evident from paragraphs 5,6 and 20 of the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submission of the parties and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T