Sunil Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62834 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2021 Thana- CHANDRAMANDI District- Jamui ====================================================== SUNIL DAS Son of Rajkumar Das R/V- Hirantaran, P.S- Chandramandih, Dist- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 11-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the IPC. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner along with his family members has tortured in various ways to the deceased due to non-fulfillment of further dowry demand and ultimately they killed her by setting her on fire.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in this case. Prior to the alleged occurrence, there is no complain regarding torture or harassment against the petitioner. In fact, during boiling milk, she caught fire and received burnt injury. Her Husband took her to hospital

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62834 of 2022(4) dt.11-04-2023 2/2 for treatment to RIMS, Ranchi, where she succumbed to burn injury on 26.05.2021. Several attempts were made to save the life of the deceased by the petitioner. Petitioner is a man of clean antecedent. He is languishing in judicial custody since 8.2.2022.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail and submitted that deceased is wedded wife of the petitioner and after sprinkling K. Oil she was burnt to death within seven years of marriage. During investigation, several witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the gravity and nature of the offence, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U