Arvind Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63316 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2022 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== ARVIND RAI Son of Anandi Rai Resident of Village- Keshopur, P.S.- Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhavesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 18-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 304B, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner along with others if of killing the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of further dowry demand.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petition. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 29.04.2022.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63316 of 2022(3) dt.18-05-2023 2/2 Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is direct allegation of abuse/assault and finally killed the deceased for non-fulfillment of further dowry demand is against the petitioner and others. The sole responsibility of taking care of his wife is against her husband (petitioner). The death was occurred in the matrimonial house of the deceased within seven years of marriage. Petitioner has not informed to the parents of the deceased about the said occurrence. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. 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 conclude the trial expeditiously.

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