Mintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66667 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2022 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== MINTU SINGH Son of Baiju Singh Resident of Village- Kadama, P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran at Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (B), 201, 120 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the marriage of the informant's daughter was solemnized with the petitioner, ten years prior to lodging of the FIR. On 7th May, 2022, a villager apprised him that the accused persons including the petitioner who is husband of the deceased had burnt her to death. The petitioner, who is son-in-law of the informant, prior to the occurrence had solemnized his second marriage and the accused persons were demanding a motorcycle from the informant as dowry.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The marriage has taken place ten years prior to the occurrence, as such

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66667 of 2022(4) dt.21-04-2023 2/2 Section 304 B of the IPC is not applicable and other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

It appears that though the case has been registered under Section 304 B of the IPC but the charge sheet has been submitted against the other accused persons also under Section 302/201 and 120B/34 of the IPC. The petitioner remained absconding, as such his case was split-up and the supplementary investigation was going on against him. There is allegation against the petitioner that he has solemnized his second marriage and thereafter he committed atrocities on his wife and along with other accused persons he burnt her alive to death. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

The learned court below is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T