Nanhak Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81807 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2023 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas ====================================================== Nanhak Rai Son Of Late Raja Rai R/O Village - Malhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chenari P.S. Case No. 189/2023, lodged on 17.06.2023 under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged against three named accused persons including the present petitioner alleging therein that all the accused persons in connivance with each other have killed the daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. From a perusal of the contents of the FIR, it itself appears that on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence, rather he went outside to earn his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81807 of 2023(3) dt.05-03-2024 2/2 livelihood. During the investigation, not a single witness supported the prosecution version. The petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2023 having a clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Upon specific query from the counsel for the petitioner whether the charge has been framed or not, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aware of the fact whether the charge has been framed or not.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner in connection with Chenari P.S. Case No. 189/2023, pending before the learned CJM, Rohtas at Sasaram is hereby rejected.

9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail 9 months after framing of the charge.

10. With this observation, the bail application stands disposed off.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T