Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57828/2021bail rejected

Govind Sahani @ Govind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2022-05-09Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57828 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-314 Year-2020 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia ====================================================== GOVIND SAHANI @ GOVIND KUMAR S/o BHARAT SAHNI R/o VILLAGE-BHAGRENDA, P.S- MANIGACHI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, sister of the informant who was married to the petitioner herein was abused, assaulted and tortured. It is stated that information was received by the informant about the condition of his sister deteriorating. On reaching the place of occurrence, the informant states that he was informed about the petitioner having assaulted her. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is inordinate delay of one year in lodging of the FIR. The allegations as levelled in the FIR are false and concocted.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57828 of 2021(3) dt.09-05-2022 2/2 The postmortem report talks about the injuries caused by hard and blunt object. The manner of occurrence was that the sister of the informant had met with a road accident. The petitioner is in custody since 27.3.2021 and has no criminal antecedent. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the direct allegations against the petitioner in the FIR together with the contents of the postmortem report wherein the antemortem injuries are said to have caused by hard and blunt substance and the petitioner being the husband of the deceased, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/- U