Kundan Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71491 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2021 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada ====================================================== KUNDAN CHAUDHARY Son Of Govind Mehta R/O Village- Shivpur, P.S.- Sirdala, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-05-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sirdala P.S. Case No. 272 of 2021, dated 25.06.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, the informant's daughter was strangulated to death by this petitioner and his family members over non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

4. The main submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel are that against the petitioner there is no specific allegation and he has been languishing in jail since 19.05.2022, in fact the deceased died due to heart disease and there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71491 of 2022(3) dt.05-05-2023 2/2

5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the seriousness of the allegation appearing against this petitioner which gets support from the petitioner's own daughter's statement who alleged before investigating officer that this petitioner and his family members always quarreled with the deceased and on the alleged night of the occurrence they first increased the sound of musical instrument and thereafter started assaulting the victim and on the next day the dead body of the victim was found and similar allegation has also been levelled by some other material witnesses during investigation, in my opinion it is not a fit case for bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner's prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and take steps to conclude the same in the next one year, if petitioner's trial is not concluded in the next one year then he may renew his prayer for bail.

(Shailendra Singh, J.) maynaz/- U T