Sudama Prasad @ Sudama Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83578 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2023 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== SUDAMA PRASAD @ SUDAMA KUMAR Son of Rajendra Prasad R/O VILLAGE PACHRUKHI, P.S. AKBARPUR, DISTRICT NAWADA, BIHAR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Upendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 56 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, petitioner and others committed murder of informant's daughter by pressing her neck for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the first information report. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Petitioner has been made accused in this case merely because he is the husband of the deceased. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 26.01.2023.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State as well as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83578 of 2023(5) dt.19-07-2024 2/3 learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner being the husband cannot escape from the responsibility that his wife has died within one year of marriage and death was under suspicious circumstances and post mortem report also supports that the deceased was having pregnancy. The fact of pregnancy, as alleged in the first information report, has been supported by post mortem report and post mortem report also indicates external injury. In this way, petitioner being the husband does not deserve bail.

6. In pursuance of the order of the Court, a report has been received from the trial court. The report indicates that out of seven charge-sheet witnesses, four have already been examined and only three witnesses are left to be examined and the concerned Court has sought three months time to conclude the trial of the case.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner being the husband along with material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83578 of 2023(5) dt.19-07-2024 3/3 the trial of the case and conclude it as early as possible. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) mcv/- U T