Gangadhar Jalba Padade @ Padade Gangadhar Jalba v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51038 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2022 Thana- NARALI KALA KHURD DistrictAurangabad ====================================================== Gangadhar Jalba Padade @ Padade Gangadhar Jalba Son Of Jalba Shambhaji Padade @ Jalba Padade R/O- Pangara, P.S.- Kandhar, Distt.- Naded (MAHARASTRA), At Present Cisf Npgcl, P.S.- Narari Kala Khurd, Distt.- Aurangabad (BIHAR) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Ms. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-12-2024 Heard the parties.

2.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Aurangabad Naralikala Khurd P.S. Case No.85 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable u/s 304(B) of IPC. 3.

Allegedly, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons has killed the informant's daughter due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No occurrence in the alleged manner has taken place. The petitioner has never demanded dowry nor tortured her. At the time of incident, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51038 of 2024(6) dt.13-12-2024 2/2 petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. He was on duty. On perusal of the FIR, it is clear that it is a case of accidental death. Deceased was trying to save the child from falling off, but both mother and child fell on the ground in which mother died but the child survived. FIR has been lodged after delay of 14 days without giving any proper reason. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 21.03.2024.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that petitioner is the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of regular bail on his behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for regular bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) priyanka/- U T