Aditya Raj @ Raju Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19196 of 2016 (3) dt.26-05-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19196 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -244 Year- 2015 Thana -BUDDHACOLONY District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Aditya Raj @ Raju Kumar Son of Bhajan Sah, Resident of Masala Gali Buddha Colony, P.S.- Buddha Colony, Town & District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Shukla For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar 1 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody since 28.09.2015 in connection with Budha Colony P.S. Case No.244 of 2015 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner in December, 2013. It is alleged that due to greedy nature, a demand of valuable items and money were made by the in-laws and due to non-fulfilment of the same, the daughter of the informant was subjected to cruelty and torture. Suddenly on 27.09.2015, a call from Mobile Phone No. 07070927190 of one Bhajan Sah was received by the informant that his daughter fell in the bathroom and her condition was critical. When the informant and others reached at the house of in-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19196 of 2016 (3) dt.26-05-2016 laws of the informant's daughter, they found that she was dead. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is in custody since 28.09.2015 and the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case. There is no substantive evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the first information report and he is the husband of the deceased. Paragraph No.36 of the case diary is the postmortem report, which supports the allegation made in the first information report.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. Anyhow, the trial court is directed to take all necessary steps to conclude the trial, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) V.P.Sinha/- U