Mukesh Ram @ Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67667 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2018 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== MUKESH RAM @ MUKESH KUMAR SON OF SHYAM SUDAR RAM R/O CHAND PARNA, P.S.- MINAPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arvind Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-05-2023 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 Minapur P.S. Case No. 230 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per allegation, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner three years prior to lodging of the FIR. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had illicit relation with wife of co-accused Rajesh Ram and whenever she protested, he assaulted her. There is also allegation of demand of a motorcycle in dowry against the petitioner. The petitioner and other accused persons committed murder of the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67667 of 2022(4) dt.03-05-2023 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant has compromised the case. The petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is delay of two days in lodging of the FIR.
On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the case diary, Bhola Ram and Ramchandra Ram have stated that whenever the deceased protested the illicit relation of the petitioner along with that lady, he used to assault her. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/Kundan U T