Pravin Kumar @ Pinku @ Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39377 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2020 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Pravin Kumar @ Pinku @ Praveen Kumar, Son of Upendra Prasad @ Upendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Taradih, P.S.- Madanpur, DistrictAurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramsevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 05-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No.45 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad.

The prosecution case is that the informant's son had gone out on 11.03.2020 and he did not return. Later, she has come to learn about strangulation of her son. The informant has cast suspicion on the instant petitioner of having killed her son as his son was opposing the relationship of the petitioner, with his sister.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39377 of 2020(4) dt.05-03-2021 2/2 It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that having no criminal antecedents, the petitioner is in custody since 04.06.2020. The entire allegation is false and fabricated as in the case diary, material has come regarding illicit relation of the petitioner with the informant and the deceased's sister. The learned APP, referring to the statement of the grandfather and uncle plus one villager, has submitted that they have stated about attempt being made by this petitioner earlier also on the life of the deceased when he was found in compromising situation at the house of the petitioner. Considering the rival submissions, for the present, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer. The same is rejected.

This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T