Patna High CourtCR. MISC./79555/2024bail rejected

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Singh @ Kallu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-03Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79555 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-483 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Singh @ Kallu Singh son of Lalbabu Singh village -and Po- Bishanpur Bhejha Ps -Mahua District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar bihar 2.

Neeraj Kumar Singh son of Late Chandrashekhar Singh village- Bainathpur, Po- Jhausagarhi, Ps- kunda, Dist- Deoghat ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 03-01-2025

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

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with S.Tr. no. 79 of 2024 arising out of Mahua P.S. Case no. 483 of 2023 registered under sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his sister who was married to the petitioner herein, was tortured for demand of a vehicle and Rs. 2 lacs in cash. She was ultimately done to death and her body was disposed of.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 12.3.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 13438 of 2024. Inspite of the petitioner being in custody since 11.9.2023 only two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79555 of 2024(3) dt.03-01-2025 2/2 as per instructions received have been declared hostile. There is no chance of the trial concluding in the near future. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. A report was called for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 11.12.2024, charge was framed on 6.9.2024 and two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution on 13.09.2024 and 20.09.2024.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R against the petitioner who happens to be husband of the deceased, sister of the informant having been killed on non fulfillment of demand of dowry and two witnesses having been examined on behalf of prosecution, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Harsh/- U T