Mukesh Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1145 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-431 Year-2019 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali ====================================================== MUKESH SAHNI Son of Mintu Sahni Resident of Village - Hasanpur Gangti, P.S.- Garaul (Kathara O.P.), Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2022 Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of starting of Court proceeding in physical mode in normal course.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture and caused death of the victim due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that in fact the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and as per allegation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1145 of 2022(4) dt.23-08-2022 2/2 the petitioner and other family members has demanded the dowry from the family member of the deceased and they committed torture and assaulted and thereafter caused death of the victim due to non-fulfillment of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that charge has been framed on 04.01.2021 but till date no witness has turned up for examination. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2020.

Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R has corroborated during investigation.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2020 arising out of Goraul (Kathara O.P.) P.S. Case No. 431 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIIIth, Vaishali at Hajipur. Prayer is refused.

However, learned court below is directed to expedite the trial.

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