Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49329/2016rejected

Pintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-19Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49329 of 2016 (4) dt.19-01-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49329 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -61 Year- 2016 Thana -RAFIGANJ District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Pintu Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2017 Heard the parties on the application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in connection with Raffiganj P.S.Case No.61 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 304-B) of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is husband of the deceased and as a matter of fact while the deceased was preparing food, the fire caught her and the mother of the petitioner went to save her but she also received burn injury and thereafter, both of them were referred to Gaya for treatment. The aforesaid fact will also appear from the earlier statement of the deceased taken by the police on 3.3.2016, which is enclosed with the petition as Annexure-2 and even during the course of the investigation, the witnesses have

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49329 of 2016 (4) dt.19-01-2017 also supported these facts. It is also a case of suicide and the police has also submitted charge-sheet under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for the informant also, who has submitted on behalf of the informant that the F.I.R. itself shows that the deceased has stated before the police, prior to her death, that the accused persons set the deceased afire and when she called her mother-in-law to save her, she also received burn injury and due to the said fire injury, the deceased died, as such the petitioner does not deserve bail.

Having heard both sides. In view of the statement of deceased on the basis of which F.I.R. has been instituted, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, as such the prayer of the petitioner for bail is rejected, however, the learned court below is directed to expedite the trial of the case. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U