Kedar Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 5926 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2018 Thana- JURAWANPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== KEDAR DAS Son of Yogendra Das Resident of Village - Juraqwanpur Karari, P.S.- Jurawanpur, Distt.- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-08-2021 This case has been taken up for consideration today through Video Conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (for brevity, APP) appearing for the State of Bihar.

The petitioner seeks bail in Jurawanpur Police Station Case No 34 of 2018 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code. The informant has alleged that his daughter has been done to death within six months of her marriage with the petitioner.

Petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case falsely. He submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5926 of 2021(9) dt.16-08-2021 2/2 petitioner was earning his livelihood in Kolkata and, therefore, he is not liable. Charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and his mother and the informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2020.

Learned APP has submitted that the death has occurred within six months of the marriage, in the matrimonial home. There is demand for dowry soon before the killing. Being husband, it was petitioner's prime responsibility and duty to safeguard the deceased and take care of her dignity. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned APP. Prayer for bail, for the present, is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant proceedings today for depositing requisite Court fee and removing the defect (s), as pointed out, when called upon to do so.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T