Patna High CourtCR. MISC./71898/2021bail rejected

Surendra Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-10Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71898 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2020 Thana- NAYAGAON District- Saran ====================================================== Surendra Pandit S/o Rajdeo Pandit R/o village- Rasulpur, P.S.- Nayagaon, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Krishna Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satya Nand Shukla ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 36 of 2020 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 328 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 323, 324, 341, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, marriage of informant's daughter was solemnized with petitioner. After marriage all the accused persons including this petitioner started demanding dowry. It is further alleged that the accused persons committed murder of informant's daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and disposed of her dead body. Petitioner is husband of the deceased.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71898 of 2021(2) dt.10-03-2022 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence has ever taken place and there was no demand of dowry by the petitioner. In fact, there was some quarrel between the petitioner and his wife (deceased) due to which the deceased committed suicide. There is general and omnibus allegation. Petitioner is in custody since 08.03.2020 having no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner is husband of the deceased and deceased died in unnatural circumstance at her matrimonial home, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T