Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48818/2016rejected

Ranjeet Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-11Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48818 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -62 Year- 2015 Thana -PALI District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Ranjeet Yadav .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Meena Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

This is an application for grant of regular bail for offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner of either demand of dowry and as a matter of fact the deceased was in maike and death occurred and petitioner and others have been falsely implicated in this case and petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.07.2016. Heard the learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. also. It has been submitted on behalf of the informant that there are allegation against the petitioner and further the charge has been framed and the two witnesses have also been examined.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48818 of 2016 (3) dt.11-01-2017 2/2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is direct allegation against the demand of dowry and charge has been framed in the case and two witnesses have been examined, as such I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, the Court below is directed to expedite the matter and try to conclude it within a reasonable time and both the parties shall cooperate in concluding of the trial. Accordingly, with the above observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sanjeev/- U T