Harihar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9522 of 2017 (2) dt.11-04-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9522 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -231 Year- 2016 Thana -DURGAWATI District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ====================================================== Harihar Ram S/o Late Vishwanth Ram, Resident of Village- Kripalpur, P.S.- Durgawati, District- Kaimur (Bhabua)..... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Nandan Sahay For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Pradeep Narain Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 11-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 231 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mamta Kumari the daughter of the informant, was married to Bigau Ram, the son of the petitioner, and after marriage motorcycle and she buffalo were being demanded, due to nonfulfillment she was being tortured and assaulted and ultimately she was brunt to death and her dead body was made traceless. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is old father-in-law aged about 65 years, the deceased died due to her own fault at the time of cooking by straw, the deceased was living separately with her husband and as such there was no reason for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9522 of 2017 (2) dt.11-04-2017 the petitioner to commit such occurrence for dowry. The petitioner never demanded anything, there is no specific allegation against him, there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and the petitioner is suffering in custody since 04.01.2017. Chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that the petitioner is the father-in-law and husband is already in custody, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 231 of 2016, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T