Dev Nandan Paswan @ Deva Nand Paswan @ Div Nandan Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1894 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2020 Thana- SARMERA District- Nalanda ====================================================== DEV NANDAN PASWAN @ DEVA NAND PASWAN @ DIV NANDAN PASWAN S/O SADO PASWAN Resident of village- Kuji Chak (Singhaul), P.S.- Sarmera, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kishor Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 03-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sarmera P.S. Case No. 27 of 2020 instituted for the offence under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner along with his family members has tortured in various ways to the sister of the informant for dowry demand of Rs. Fifty thousand and due to non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand ultimately they killed her.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, deceased had herself committed suicide due to mental stress. He never demanded any

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1894 of 2023(4) dt.03-07-2023 2/2 thing from the deceased or her family members. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since in custody since 24.12.2020.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail and submitted that during investigation, several witnesses have supported the prosecution story. As per postmortem report, doctor has opined cause of death due to asphyxia caused by throttling.

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.

The progress report dt. 6.5.2023 suggests that out of six chargesheet witnesses, only I.O. is yet to be examined. The case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 9.5.2023. In that view of the matter, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of four months failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

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