Raja Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61784 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2021 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== RAJA RAI S/O SURAJ RAI R/o village - Jan Mohammadpur, P.S.- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Ms. Renuka Ratnakar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks after complete start of the physical Court. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.07.2021, is a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted. The informant alleges that his daughter was married to the petitioner on 12.06.2020. After marriage, the petitioner and his family members were demanding one motorcycle and Rs.80,000/- by way of dowry but the informant showed his inability to fulfill the demand but promised that motorcycle

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61784 of 2021(2) dt.23-03-2022 2/2 would be given. Further, on 10.04.2021, the informant came to know that his daughter has been murdered. Accordingly, the informant reached the place of occurrence and found the dead body of his daughter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being the husband has been falsely implicated in the present case and the petitioner never demanded any dowry or motorcycle.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that the marriage was not even a year old and the postmortem report records that death was due to shock and hemorrhage caused by hard and blunt substance as recorded in the impugned order. Considering the fact that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 60 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Samastipur. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T