Anmol Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67335 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2022 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Anmol Rai S/o Mukul Rai R/o Village- Raghopur Bakhari, P.S.- Punaura, Distt- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Dr. Arunlata Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP For the Informant : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 20.07.2022 in connection with Punaura P.S. Case No. 135 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 17.06.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution case, the petitioner along with other accused persons jointly out of their conspiracy, murdered the daughter of the informant and also with intention to disappear the evidence, they concealed the dead body of her daughter. The cause of said occurrence is non-fulfillment of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67335 of 2022(4) dt.12-05-2023 2/2 demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the ground that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. He further submits that the date of occurrence is 15.06.2022 but the present F.I.R. has been instituted on 17.06.2022 i.e., after delay of 2 days without giving any explanation of the said delay. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it has come during investigation that the petitioner has committed the crime as alleged in the F.I.R. and the witnesses have also supported the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Punaura P.S. Case No. 135 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T