Sumit Kumar Pandit @ Dharo Pandit v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65843 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2021 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria ====================================================== SUMIT KUMAR PANDIT @ DHARO PANDIT Son of Sudhir Pandit Resident of Village- Sumeri Tola, P.S.- Parbatta (Bharatkhand), DistrictKhagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Viveka Nandsingh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 226 of 2021 arising out of Parbatta P.S. Case No. 238 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.06.2021, is a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant alleges that his sister was married to this petitioner two years ago and the petitioner and his family members were demanding dowry, as detailed in the F.I.R., further on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65843 of 2021(2) dt.12-04-2022 2/2 12.06.2021, the informant came to know that the accused persons, including the petitioner, have killed his sister for dowry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case merely because he is husband of the deceased. It is further submitted that in the last portion of the F.I.R. it is not alleged that the petitioner was also involved in killing of the deceased, thus submits that petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, the marriage was only two years old and the presumption also for the present is against him. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is thus rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T