Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4605/2021dismissed

Sunil Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2021-05-26Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4605 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2019 Thana- KARTAHA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sunil Ram, aged about 25 years, S/O Mantu Ram Resident Of VillageKartahan (KARTAHA), P.S.-KARTAHAN (KARTAHA), District-Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 26-05-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual Court proceedings. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 304 B & 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The daughter of the informant is said to have been killed by the petitioner in association of all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case merely because he is husband of the deceased. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. As a matter of fact, the deceased was living happy

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4605 of 2021(3) dt.26-05-2021 2/2 marital live with the petitioner but due to electrocution she died. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 17.08.2020.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he along with other co-accused has killed the daughter of the informant. He further submitted that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case in toto. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case as also considering the fact that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at present. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) GAURAV S./- U