Manoj Ram @ Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61801 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2021 Thana- PUPRI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Manoj Ram @ Manoj Kumar S/O Brij Kishore Ram @ Nand Kishore Ram Resident of Village- Hariharpur, Purvi Tola, P.S.- Pupri, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to prosecution case, the gist of the allegations as contained in F.I.R. is that the deceased Pinki Kumari was married to accused Manoj Ram on 06.05.2016. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons started subjecting deceased with cruelty in lieu of demand of one motorbike and cash of dowry. It is further alleged that deceased Pinku Kumari filed complaint Case No. 37/2020 against the accused persons. Later on, it is alleged that the accused persons

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61801 of 2022(4) dt.22-03-2023 2/3 took deceased to her matrimonial house and on 06.11.2021 at about 1.30 AM all accused persons including the petitioner murdered the deceased Pinki Kumar by strangulating her by a rope.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and no such occurrence took place. He further submits that similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Sunit Devi has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35891 of 2022. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he has committed the murdered of his wife and the present occurrence took place within seven years of the marriage with the deceased.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Pupri P.S. Case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61801 of 2022(4) dt.22-03-2023 3/3 No. 366 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri, Sitamarhi.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T