Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38989 of 2018 (4) dt.28-08-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38989 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -165 Year- 2017 Thana -CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Singh S/o Kameshwar Singh @ Teja Singh, R/o Vill.- Berui, P.S.- Baniapur, Distt.- Saran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Chappra Mufassil P.S. Case No. 165 of 2017 (S. Tr. No. 13 of 2018) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant is the brother of deceased, who in his written complaint has stated that his sister was married to petitioner in the year 2015 but subsequently thereof she was being tortured for non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On 12.05.2017 he received information on mobile that his sister has been killed on 10.05.2017 and her dead body is being disposed of and on such information he reached at the matrimonial house of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38989 of 2018 (4) dt.28-08-2018 his sister and found all the accused have fled away after locking the house, however dead body was recovered and according to postmortem report death is due to strangulation, caused by hard blunt object. Allegation in FIR is of general and omnibus in nature against all the accused. Petitioner is the husband and it has been submitted on his behalf that on the alleged day of occurrence he was not present there and was working in his firm at Delhi. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 19.06.2017.

Considering the allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Chappra Mufassil P.S. Case No. 165 of 2017 (S. Tr. No. 13 of 2018), pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Saran at Chapra. However, petitioner is granted liberty to renew the prayer for the bail after completing two years of custody in jail.

.

(S. Kumar, J) Amit/manoj U T