Patna High CourtCR. MISC./64759/2022bail rejected

Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-04-20Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64759 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2020 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna ====================================================== SANTOSH KUMAR S/O RAM RATAN RAI @ RATAN RAI Resident of Village- Madhopur, P.S.- Shahpur, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammed Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-04-2023 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 45 of 2020, registered for offence punishable under Sections 304(B)/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the sister of the informant was married to the petitioner in the year 2020. The accused persons tortured the victim for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On 15.02.2016, a case, vide Shahpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 2016, was lodged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner. On 22.01.2020, the informant got an information that his sister

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64759 of 2022(4) dt.20-04-2023 2/2 was murdered and the accused persons had concealed her dead body. Prior to the occurrence, the deceased on 14.01.2020 had apprised the informant that the named accused persons, including the petitioner, inflicted atrocities on her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The other co-accused persons have been granted bail. On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has solemnized second marriage.

The petitioner is husband of the deceased. There is allegation against him that he solemnized second marriage and he also inflicted atrocities on the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges for bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

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