Suresh Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1448 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-285 Year-2019 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== SURESH SAH SON OF LATE DOMI SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGEDAMGARA, P.S.-DHAMDAHA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 11-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant case for depositing the requisite court fee and to remove the defect(s) as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 285 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending before CJM, Purnea. Prosecution case relates to commission of murder by the petitioner to his wife, namely, Bijili Devi and petitioner is the husband of the deceased.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1448 of 2021(5) dt.11-01-2022 2/2 that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

From perusal of the case diary, it appears that being the husband of the deceased, petitioner is responsible to keep his wife properly but the suspicion goes against the petitioner for commission of murder of his wife because he stated that she died due to her ailment but he could not inform the parents of the deceased, as such, there is ample evidence against the petitioner for commission of murder of his wife. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) brajesh kumar/- U T