Pawan Mistri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65780 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2021 Thana- IMAMGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== PAWAN MISTRI SON OF LATE SUKHDEO MISTRI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PANANIYA, PS- IMAMGANJ, DISTT- GAYA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Murlidhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 02-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 187 of 2021 instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is a case of commission of murder of his wife by the petitioner by assaulting.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner is husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. No one is the eye witness of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that there is no prior complain in respect of torture, harassment and assault. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65780 of 2023(4) dt.02-02-2024 2/2 that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 29.11.2021. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is direct and specific allegation of causing death of his wife after assault. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The postmortem report of the deceased also corroborates the prosecution case in which doctor opined that several antemortem injuries found on the person which are dangerous to life and cause of death is haemorrhage and shock. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, 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 the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T