Ranjit Saw v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72190 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2022 Thana- UPHARA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== RANJIT SAW Son of Basant Saw Resident of Village- Mahadipur, P.S.- Uphara, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rohit Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 21-06-2023 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 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner along with others is 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. There is no any complaint regarding demanding of dowry, assaulting, harassment and torturing to the deceased against the petitioner. There is no direct evidence against the petitioner, on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72190 of 2022(5) dt.21-06-2023 2/2 the basis of suspicion, he has implicated in this case. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 01.07.2022. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that the death of the deceased has been occurred within seven years of marriage. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. According to perusal of the status report, the trial Court suggests that trial shall be concluded within six months.

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 as mentioned in its report.

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