Jagmohan Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56319 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2022 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali ====================================================== Jagmohan Ray Son of Harvev Ray Resident of Village- Tikaha Bahadurpur, P.S.- Goraul, District- Vaishali at Hajipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 15-02-2023 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Goraul P.S. Case No. 124 of 2022 lodged under Sections 201, 120(B), 304(B) and 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per the prosecution case, the allegation of causing dowry death is there in the F.I.R. against the petitioner and his family members. The recovery of half burnt dead body of the deceased has alleged to be made from chaur of the village of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56319 of 2022(3) dt.15-02-2023 2/2 petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2022 and charge sheet has already been framed.

Counsel submits that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and therefore, he become scapegoat in this case. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that it is an offence under Section 304(B) and therefore, responsibility is always with the husband (Petitioner). In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail 6 months after framing of charge.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) prakashmani/- U T