← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1228/2015rejected

Nand Lal Bind v. The State Of Bihar

2015-04-10Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1228 of 2015 (04) dt.10-04-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1228 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -576 Year- 2013 Thana -BHABHUA District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Nand Lal Bind .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar Seth For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kr. 1(A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 10-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Petitioner is the husband of Meera Devi, who died at her Sasural within seven years as well as her dead body was cremated before arrival of the prosecution party. There happens to be disclosure with regard to persistent demand coupled with torture on that very score.

It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that deceased was suffering from dysentery and in a way to hospital, she died. It has also been submitted that there happens to be delay in lodging of F.I.R. It has further been pleaded that informant was present at the time of cremation. Subsequently thereof, as she insisted for protecting interest of her daughter's daughter aged about one year and on that very score, both the parties have

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1228 of 2015 (04) dt.10-04-2015 differences, whereupon instant case has been instituted. Also, submitted that petitioner happens to be under custody since 20.09.2014.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that being husband and further the oral submission not being corroborated with any kind of documentary evidence to suggest that deceased died of dysentery, the explanation offered by the petitioner is found nonacceptable. For the present, I do not see it a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, prayer of petitioner for bail is rejected. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Vikash/- U T