Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53993/2024bail rejected

Prabhat Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-30Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53993 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2022 Thana- MUFFASIL District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Prabhat Kumar S/o Sunil Kumar Singh @ Sunil Kumar R/o vill - Basdiha, P.S. - Muffasil, Distt. - Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-08-2024 Heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 334 of 2022 dated 23.09.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, Sections 302 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code was added.

3. The Petitioner has allegedly caused the dowry death of his wife and had also moved this Court earlier by way of Cr. Misc. nos. 43229 of 2023 and 7074 of 2023 for his enlargement on bail. However, the same were rejected by co-ordinate benches of this Court vide orders dated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53993 of 2024(3) dt.30-08-2024 2/3 16.10.2023 and 17.04.2023 respectively in view of serious nature of the allegation.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 20.04.2023 and trial has not still concluded.

5. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

6. Ld. APP for the State, however, opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that he was the husband of the deceased and hence, the main accused and even the length of custody in jail is just about one year and the trial is in progress. He also refers to the report of learned Trial Court, as per which, out of seven prosecution witnesses, four witnesses have already been examined.

7. Considering the nature of allegation against the Petitioner, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the Petitioner stands rejected.

9. However, Ld. Trial Court is directed to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53993 of 2024(3) dt.30-08-2024 3/3 conclude the trial at the earliest and if the Trial is not concluded within a period of nine months, the Petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Jitendra Kumar, J) S.Ali/Shoaib U T