Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34028/2018dismissed

Manoj Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2018-06-25Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34028 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2014 Thana- KANTI THARMAL POWER DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Manoj Ram, S/O Shiv Ram, Resident of Village Kodhiya (Kathiyan) P.S. Kanti District Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Sri Yogendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Sri Pranav Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-06-2018 Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranav Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner/ husband of the deceased and in custody since 13.11.2017, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 171 of 2018 ( Kanti P.S. Case No. 130 of 2014), registered for the offence under Sections 304(B)/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade the court that in this case alleged occurrence had taken place on 13.03.2014, however fardbyan was got recorded on 22.03.2014 even thereafter, F.I.R. was not immediately lodged and F.I.R. in this case was lodged on 03.04.2014. He tried to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34028 of 2018(2) dt.25-06-2018 2/2 persuade the court that deceased died due to natural death and subsequently, a false case was fabricated, however, he did not dispute the fact that case has already been committed to the court of Sessions, but as per learned counsel for the petitioner till date charge has not been framed.

Besides hearing, I have perused the materials available on record particularly the F.I.R. and on going through the F.I.R., I am of the opinion that it is not a case for grant of bail, and as such, prayer for bail stands dismissed. However, considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2017 and case has already been committed to the court of Sessions, while dismissing it is desirable to observe that the learned court below as well as prosecution may take all steps, so that , the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T