Chitranjan Roy v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57000 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2022 Thana- IMADPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== CHITRANJAN ROY Son of Shyam Sundar Roy Resident of VillageSawana, P.S- Imadpur, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 23-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 304(B)/34 of the IPC however, submitted chargesheet u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, informant alleged that her daughter was tortured for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. On 15.03.2022, he got information that her daughter was murdered by the petitioner along with co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. He has got no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57000 of 2022(5) dt.23-03-2023 2/2 the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 08.04.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is husband of the deceased, namely, Sudha Devi. From perusal of postmortem report, there are several external injuries found on the body of the deceased and doctor also opined that the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. It is further submitted that witnesses also supported the prosecution version.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant the petitioner on bail, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

Learned court is directed to expedite the trial conclude the same within period of nine months failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Manish/- U T