Patna High CourtCR. MISC./422/2023bail rejected

Neeraj Kumar @ Pappu v. The State Of Bihar

2024-03-21Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.422 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2021 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Neeraj Kumar @ Pappu Son Of Late Haridwar Rai R/V- Kharauna, P.S.- Tarari, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Virendra Kumar Ray, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Madhuri Lata, Addl Public Prosecutor ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is a case of dowry death.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact on 10.12.2020 parents of the deceased had married her with the petitioner, though she wanted to marry another person. This situation made her mentally disturbed and finally on 24.9.2021 she committed suicide. Besides this, at the relevant time, deceased was staying at her parents's house in Bhojpur District of Bihar, whereas petitioner was on duty in Railways near Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, which is about 300 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. Petitioner is in custody since 13.5.2022.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.422 of 2023(11) dt.21-03-2024 2/2

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is direct and specific allegation that he and his family members killed the deceased for non-fulfilment of dowry demand.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is husband of the deceased, who died in unnatural condition within seven years of marriage, prayer for bail of the petitioner, is rejected.

7. As the petitioner is in custody since 13.5.2022, let the trial be expedited and concluded preferably within a year from today, failing which petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T