Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76547/2023rejected

Sukhdeo Sao v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-07Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76547 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-649 Year-2022 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Sukhdeo Sao S/O Late Mathura Sao R/O Village- Ambatri, P.S- Mohanpur, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Aryan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 07-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 304B, 120B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of killing the daughter of the informant, due to non-fulfillment of further dowry demand.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. There is no any prior complaint regarding assaulting, harassment and torturing to the deceased against the petitioner. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 21.06.2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76547 of 2023(3) dt.07-02-2024 2/2

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR, he is the husband of the deceased and the sole responsibility of taking care of deceased is against her husband/petitioner but he did not do so. He submitted that the cremation of the deceased was done in absence of her family members, which raised strong suspicion against the petitioner. He further submitted that the deceased has died within seven years of marriage. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. 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.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Arish/- U T