Md. Faraj Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22044 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -188 Year- 2014 Thana -BALRAMPUR District- KATIHAR ======================================================

1. Md. Faraj Alam S/o Late Sheikh Samiruddin Resident of Village Silampur, P.S. Balrampur, District Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dinesh Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. On 28.4.2014 the daughter of the informant, Arefa Khatoon went to Dalkola with the petitioner on cycle. Thereafter she did not return and later on her dead body was found nearby the railway line.

On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 4.11.2014. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. On behalf of the State and the informant, it has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22044 of 2015 (2) dt.20-07-2015 2/2 been submitted that the petitioner is none but the husband of the deceased. It has further been submitted that from the information given by this petitioner, it was learnt that the dead body was lying on the railway station. Subsequently it was confirmed by the Station Master that a dead body was found on the railway line and in respect to that he had got the U.D. case also instituted and post mortem examination was also conducted.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer is, accordingly, rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) S.Pandey/- U T