Azim v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84082 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2020 Thana- BANMANKHI District- Purnia ====================================================== AZIM SON OF LATE TASRUDDIN R/O VILLAGE- DHARHARA, ANSARI TOLA, P.S.- BANMANKHI, DISTRICT.- PURNEA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Viveka Nandsingh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Banmankhi P.S. Case no.28 of 2020, registered under sections 302, 341, 323, 498A, 363, 365 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his daughter who has married to the petitioner herein was abused, tortured and assaulted by the accused persons including the petitioner herein who happened to be her husband. She was ultimately killed and her body disposed of.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason of his being the husband of the daughter of the informant. The allegations levelled in the FIR are false and concocted. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84082 of 2023(3) dt.09-04-2024 2/2 petitioner is in custody since 13.8.2023 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that in course of investigation the petitioner has admitted to have assaulted the daughter of the informant leading to her death and of having buried her dead body in a cemetery. However, the body could not be excavated because of law and order problem.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation and specially the petitioner being the husband of the daughter of the informant, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in custody or after framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U T