Ajay Padit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49624 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2021 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran ====================================================== AJAY PADIT Son of Wakil Padit Resident of Village - Golaghat Dumari, P.s.- Yogapatti, Distt.- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 02-02-2023 Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 182/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per prosecution case, there is allegation against the petitioner and others to have killed the informant's daughter by way of electric current passing in her body due to nonfulfillment 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 06.06.2022

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49624 of 2022(3) dt.02-02-2023 2/3 and bears no criminal antecedent. He further submits that there is no allegation that any dowry was demanded soon before the death of the deceased. 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 as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that occurrence took place on 03.05.2021 in the night at 10.00 P.M. but no information was given to the informant and the dead body of the deceased has been disposed of by the petitioner and others. There is allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner and others. The petitioner is husband of the deceased. He further submits that in para 50 and 51 of the case diary independent witnesses namely Akhilesh Giri and Ram Avatar Rai have supported the prosecution story.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is husband of the deceased and nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

However, if trial is not concluded within nine months

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49624 of 2022(3) dt.02-02-2023 3/3 from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T