Ramesh Gohiwar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1759 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2020 Thana- KHUTAUNA District- Madhubani ====================================================== RAMESH GOHIWAR S/o Amir Lal Gohiwar R/o village- Kalaripatti, P.S.- Khutauna, Distt.- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 06-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 302, 304B, 379, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the accused persons including the petitioner herein who happens to be the husband of the deceased killed the sister- in- law (nanad) of the informant and was making an attempt to dispose of the dead body by burning the same. On the informant and others reaching the place of occurrence, they escaped.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason of his being the husband of the deceased. The allegations as levelled in the FIR are false and concocted. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1759 of 2022(4) dt.06-01-2023 2/2 petitioner has cooperated in the investigation and are cooperating in the trial. He is in custody since 5.1.2021, has no criminal antecedent and thus he be enlarged on bail for properly contesting the case against him.

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that only the doctor and the investigating officer remain to be examined as witness on behalf of the prosecution in the trial in the learned trial Court.

Taking into consideration the nature of allegation, the petitioner being the husband of the deceased and the progress in the trial in the learned trial Court, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same at the earliest preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. (Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U