Niranjan Singh @ Niranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53460 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -117 Year- 2014 Thana -OBRA District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Niranjan Singh @ Niranjan Kumar son of Sri Sachidanand Singh @ Sachita Nand Singh resident of village- Kajhwan, P.S.- Obra, District- Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Obra P.S. Case No. 117 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Nutan Kumari the daughter of the informant was allegedly married to the petitioner in the year 2008 but she was being tortured and ill-treated by the petitioner and other in-laws due to none fulfillment of demand of dowry by way of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a motorcycle and ultimately was killed and her dead body was cremated without information to her parents. Submission is of false implication and that the marriage of the petitioner took place in the year 2003 and not in

the year 2008, the birth certificate of the son and vaccination card issued by Government Hospital goes to prove that two children were born in the year 2005 and 2006 and only with a view to implicate the petitioner under Section 304B IPC wrong allegation has been made. The wife of the petitioner died due to ailment and the informant and his family members have participated in cremation but thereafter lodged this case falsely with a view to extract money.

Learned A.P.P. duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that not only the family members of the informant but other independent witnesses of the village of the petitioner have supported the prosecution version that the petitioner and his family members killed the daughter of the informant and burnt the dead body hurriedly.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that during investigation all the witnesses have supported the prosecution version and the petitioner is the husband and as such this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his prayer stands rejected. However, considering the period of detention of the petitioner, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and

conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within 9 months.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) siddharth/- U T