Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 44697 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2020 Thana- RAJAPAKAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Rai S/O Bindeshwar Rai R/O Village- Rajapakar Chauripar, P.S.- Rajapakar, Dist. Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-09-2023 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 203 of 2020 dated 29.08.2020, lodged under Section 304(B)/ 34 of the I.P.C.

4. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant that the marriage of the informant's sister was solemnized with the petitioner. After marriage, the accused persons started demanding motorcycle and gold chain and later on all accused persons in connivance with each other killed the informant and eloped her dead body.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 44697 of 2023(3) dt.06-09-2023 2/3 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that it is true that the case has been lodged under Section 304(B)/ 34 of the I.P.C. but upon investigation, chargesheet has been filed under Section 306 of the I.P.C. and police has found this case true not of the dowry death rather of an offence took place due to suicide.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that cognizance has also been taken under Section 306 of the I.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

8. Upon specific query of the Court that whether charge has been framed in this case or not, counsel for the petitioner submits that as per his knowledge, charge has not been framed, though the case has been directed to be committed during pendency of the present criminal miscellaneous case.

9. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, therefore, his bail petition is hereby rejected.

10. Liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail two months after framing of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 44697 of 2023(3) dt.06-09-2023 3/3 charge and the Trial Court is directed to release him on bail thereafter imposing its own conditions so that he may not evade his appearance during trial.

11. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) sadique/- U T