Kunal Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66279 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2019 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Kunal Paswan, Son of Dhrup Paswan, Resident of Village-K.R. Mathiya, P.S.- Sangrampur, District-East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar Tondon For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukeshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No.24 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased lady and has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that there is no specific allegation of assault against this petitioner. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State, taking note of the fact that the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66279 of 2019(3) dt.22-01-2020 2/2 is the husband of the deceased lady, the death has taken place in the matrimonial home of this petitioner and no material has been brought in course of investigation to support the plea being taken by the petitioner that he was working at Delhi, the petitioner being in custody in connection with this case only since 01.06.2019, in the nature of the allegation and the materials on the record, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. The prayer is, thus, refused.

The petitioner may, however, renew his prayer for bail after a reasonable period.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T