Lalbabu Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49582 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-383 Year-2019 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East Champaran ====================================================== Lalbabu Sahani Son of Rajdev Sahani Resident of Village- Majhariya, P.S.- Malahi, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Rashmi Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Umesh Lal Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual court proceedings.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Govindganj (Malahi) P.S. Case No. 383 of 2019 instituted for the offences under Sections 363, 365, 34, 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 31.03.2021, is a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant alleges that his daughter was married to son of the petitioner on 01.05.2019 and after marriage, a cow, motorcycle and Rs. 2 lakhs were given as gift to the bride and thereafter

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49582 of 2021(3) dt.10-02-2022 2/2 dowry in shape of bed, box and almirah was being demanded and the deceased was assaulted for non-fulfillment of demand and further, since 12.09.2019, the victim is missing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the victim and is in custody and the victim is still traceless and as far as allegation of dowry is concerned, the same is general and omnibus in nature. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from the impugned order it appears that the victim is still traceless and has not been found as such it appears that the victim was killed and the body was concealed which till date the police has not been able to locate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, very fairly submits that the husband is not in custody. Considering the fact that the petitioner is the father-inlaw and the victim is still traceless, the Court is not inclined to grant bail more so since, the husband of the victim is also not in custody.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T