Patna High CourtCR. MISC./57216/2019dismissed

Pramod Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2019-12-04Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57216 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2019 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran ====================================================== PRAMOD MAHTO S/o Ashok Mahto R/o village- Aami (Chauhani Patti), P.S.- Dighwara, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application for grant of bail arises out of Dighwara P.S. Case No. 19 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is husband of the deceased, who is in custody in connection with above mentioned case since 01.04.2019. Referring to the First Information Report, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that suspicion of the informant, who is the grandfather of the deceased, is the only basis for registration of the First Information Report. He has submitted that there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry.

However, from the First Information Report, it appears that it was the specific case of the informant that his grandson was also missing with his deceased granddaughter.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57216 of 2019(3) dt.04-12-2019 2/2 Statement of Manish Kumar, the grandson of the informant, has been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he is said to have disclosed to the police that it was the petitioner who had made the deceased consume some material, after which she died.

Considering the statement of the brother of the deceased, Manish Kumar, recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

This application is accordingly rejected for the present.

The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after nine months, if, in the meanwhile, there is no progress in the trial.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U T