Pritam Sao v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61191 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-468 Year-2016 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Pritam Sao, Son of Late Amodh Sao, Resident of Village- Charma, P.S.- Masaurhi, Distt- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner, who is the husband, is in custody since 22.06.2017 in connection with S.Tr. No.171/18 arising out of Masaurhi P.S. Case No.468 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act, which is pending in the court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Patna.

The allegation as per the informant is that the petitioner had been torturing the lady for the sake of golden chain and ultimately, the lady was done to death and her body was surreptitiously removed. It is also the case of the informant that a three-year baby girl also died in the occurrence wherein the deceased was burnt to death. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61191 of 2018(3) dt.14-03-2019 2/2 information having been received by the informant, he went to the Sasural of his daughter, but could not find the dead bodies and the petitioner was also said to be absent from the place of occurrence.

Case diary in this case was earlier called for, which has since been received.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State after perusal of the case diary submits that the bodies were also removed from the place of occurrence and though there is no eye-witness, there is sufficient material to indicate that the petitioner was involved in the occurrence and as such, his implication cannot be ruled out.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

Let the trial of the case be expedited so as to conclude positively within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T