Patna High CourtCR. MISC./68134/2022rejected

Raj Kumar Singh @ Raj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-04-26Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68134 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2022 Thana- GAUTAMBUDHNAGAR DistrictSiwan ====================================================== RAJ KUMAR SINGH @ RAJ KUMAR S/O Angad Singh R/O VillageNauranga, P.S- G.B. Nagar, District-Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bishweshwar Ram ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 26-04-2023 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 Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner along with his family members has tortured in various ways to the sister of the informant due to non-fulfillment of a motorcylce demand by way of dowry and ultimately they killed his sister by throttling. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in this case. Deceased herself had committed suicide by hanging because she was suffering from psychopathic disease and she has a suicidal tendency Petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68134 of 2022(4) dt.26-04-2023 2/2 is languishing in judicial custody since 21.6.2022. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail and submitted that during investigation, several witnesses have supported the prosecution story. As per postmortem report, which is mentioned in para 18 of the case diary, doctor has opined cause of death due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. Petitioner is husband of the deceased with ample responsibility to maintain his wife with dignity to which he has not fulfilled.

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 expedite and conclude the trial within a period of six months.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U