Amresh Chandravanshi @ Amresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61624 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- BRAHMPURA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Amresh Chandravanshi @ Amresh Singh Son of Late Madan Singh @ Madan Chandravanshi @ Madan Singh Chandrabanshi R/O- Krishna Toli, Brahampura, P.S.- Brahampura, Dist.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Suman Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Akbar Ali, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 14-11-2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Brahampur P.S. Case No. 84 of 2024, lodged on 02.04.2024, under Sections 498A, 494, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against four named accused persons including the present petitioner against whom there is allegation that all the accused persons in connivance with each other have assaulted and killed the informant's sister. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that, despite being married to the informant's sister, he neglected her and subsequently, married another woman. The deceased has reportedly called her brother for help, but when he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61624 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 2/3 arrived at her marital home, he found her dead.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is the unfortunate husband who lost his wife. Counsel further submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 03.04.2024. Counsel further submits that on the said date, the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence rather he was present at other place and in this regard, he possesses a C.C.T.V. Footage with certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. Counsel further submits that other coaccused has already been granted bail by this Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that case diary was called for and in the case diary, it has come that the deceased was subject to torture at the hand of the accused persons and in the post-mortem report, it has also come that death was caused due to Asphyxia due to hanging.

6. Upon specific query of the Court from Counsel for the petitioner that whether the charge has been framed in this case or not, he submits that as per his knowledge charge has not been framed till date.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61624 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 3/3

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

Aman Kumar/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U T