← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50330/2024bail granted

Budur Kamat v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-02Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50330 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2024 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani ====================================================== Budur Kamat Son of Late Ram Charitra Kamat Resident of Vill- Phulparas, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar BIHAR 2.

Nirmala Devi Wife of Shri Budur Kamat Resident of Vill- Phulparas, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav Mr.Ravi Prakash For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Braj Kishore Pd.(App) Mr. Shyam Kr. Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of torturing his wife.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has already

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50330 of 2024(13) dt.02-07-2025 2/2 remained in custody for more than a period of six months and he has been granted provisional bail vide order dated 29.10.2024 to settle the dispute.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he has no instruction in the matter as he was unable to contact the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts of the case and the period of custody of the petitioner, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.10.2024, is hereby confirmed. The petitioner will remain on the same bail bonds as executed earlier and he is not required to furnish fresh bail bonds. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U