Patna High CourtCR. MISC./68199/2019rejected

Pintu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2020-03-04Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68199 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2019 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali ====================================================== PINTU RAM Son of Suraj Ram Resident of Village - Chehra Kala, P.S.- Goraul (Kathara O.P.), District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Matloob Rab ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-03-2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Goraul (Kathara O.P.) P.S. Case No. 206 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely because he is husband of the deceased. Petitioner never demanded any dowry nor tortured the deceased ever. As a matter of fact, the deceased was suffering from diarrhea and during course of treatment she died. Petitioner has two children who are at present living as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68199 of 2019(3) dt.04-03-2020 2/2 orphan.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and the accused persons have committed heinous crime. Morevoer, petitioner being the husband was responsible for the well being of his wife in which he has failed. During investigation also witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T