Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26232/2018dismissed

Rajendra Giri v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-05-02Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26232 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -40 Year- 2016 Thana - SIDHWALIA District- GOPALGANJ ===================================== Rajendra Giri, S/o Late Shiv Shankar Giri, R/o VillageJamo Mathia, P.S.- Jamo Bazar, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Awadhesh Giri, S/o Late Kalika Giri, R/o Village- Larouli Mathiya, P.S.- Sidhawalia, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ===================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Arun Kumar Singh -5 ===================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-05-2018 The petitioner/informant seeks cancellation of bail of O.P. No. 2, who is father-in-law of the deceased, which was granted to him vide order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in B.P. No. 79 of 2017 in connection with Sidhwalia P.S. Case No. 40 of 2016 which has been instituted for the offence under Section 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The O.P. No. 2 is alleged to have participated in the killing of the deceased.

The impugned order reflects that the bail was granted to O.P. No. 2 on account of certain entries in the case diary and because of the relationship of the O.P. No. 2 with the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26232 of 2018 (2) dt.02-05-2018 2/2 deceased. The O.P. No. 2 had remained in custody since 22.12.2016, which fact also weighed with the Court below in granting bail to him on 16.02.2017.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entry in para 16 of the case diary was taken into account for granting bail to the husband of the deceased. This Court doubted the correctness of the order so far as the husband of the deceased was concerned and cancelled his bail vide order dated 28.03.2018 (Annexure-4). The case of the husband of the deceased is certainly different from that of the other accused persons. The husband is enjoined with bigger responsibility of protecting his wife.

However, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 16.02.2017 whereby the bail has been granted to O.P. No. 2, who is father-in-law of the deceased.

Finding no merits in the petition, this petition is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Shageer/- U T