Guddu Madesiya @ Guddu Madheshiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59288 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2020 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== GUDDU MADESIYA @ GUDDU MADHESHIYA Son of Vijay Kumar Sah @ Vijay Madeshiya @ Vijay Madheshiya @ Vijay Ramlagan Sah Madeshiya Resident of Village- Khalgaon (Khalganw), P.S.- Kateya, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Lokesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.143/2021 arising out Kateya P.S. Case 218/2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B),201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, there is accusation against the petitioner and others to have killed the informant's daughter by setting her on fire due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 21.09.2020 and bears no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59288 of 2021(4) dt.24-08-2022 2/2 petitioner further submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and there is general and omnibus allegation. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is husband of the deceased.

Considering the nature of allegation and available material against the petitioner as well as presumption of law, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within nine months. If the trial court is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T