Patna High CourtCR. MISC./59165/2024dismissed

Brahil Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-28Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59165 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2014 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

Brahil Ravidas Son of Late Banshi Ravidas Resident of Village - Bhagwana, P.S. - Charkapathar, District - Jamui 2.

Kiran Devi Wife of Brahil Ravidas Resident of Village - Bhagwana, P.S. - Charkapathar, District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 551 of 2023 arising out of Sono (Charkapathar) P.S. Case No. 79 of 2014 registered for the offence under Sections 304(B)/34, 120B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 29.08.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29176 of 2016. While rejecting the anticipatory bail application, the Court had observed that the petitioners may surrender and pray for regular bail before the Court below

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59165 of 2024(2) dt.28-08-2024 2/2 which shall be considered by the Court below and disposed of on its own merits without being prejudiced by the order of rejection of anticipatory bail.

4. It appears that the petitioners, thereafter absconded and are in custody since 12.07.2024.

5. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners are alleged to have participated in the torture and killing of their daughter-in-law.

6. Three witnesses have been examined in the trial. The informant and four more witnesses are yet to be examined.

7. Considering the fact that the petitioners have absconded and delayed the trial of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U