Sanjay Marandi @ Rohan Marandi v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58475 of 2015 (3) dt.08-03-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58475 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -172 Year- 2015 Thana -KRITYANAND NAGAR District- - Purnea ====================================================== Sanjay Marandi @ Rohan Marandi Son of Baijnath Marandi R/o Village Jhil Tola, Baghmara, P.S. - K. Nagar, District Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 08-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with K. Nagar P.S. Case No. 172 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Lalita Murmu, the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner two months ago but after marriage both started quarreling and the petitioner used to assault her and further used to oust her and ultimately killed her with the help of rope. Submission is of false implication and that marriage was performed out of love, there was no demand of dowry, there is no allegation of harassment, without any proper investigation chargesheet has been submitted and the petitioner is suffering in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58475 of 2015 (3) dt.08-03-2016 custody since 23.04.2015, having no criminal antecedent. The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that witnesses have supported the allegation regarding repeated assault made by the petitioner and further they have stated that with the aid of rope, the petitioner killed his wife. Postmortem examination also supports the prosecution version. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T