Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3133/2019bail rejected

Mithilesh Chaupal v. The State Of Bihar

2019-10-15Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3133 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2017 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Mithilesh Chaupal Chandeshwar Chaupal Vill-Mataras Punarbas, P.SMadhepur,Distt.-Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Hriday Kant Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, being the husband, is in custody since 21.11.2017 in connection with Madhepur P.S. Case No. 107 of 2017 for the offence registered under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct circumstantial evidence against the petitioner and even in the case diary, no independent witnesses come forward to state anything against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the deceased was vomiting and crying and then she was taken to the hospital where she collapsed. He, thus, submits that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail. Diary in the present case was called for which has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3133 of 2019(10) dt.15-10-2019 2/2 since been received.

Learned counsel for the State, after perusal of the case diary submits that it is a case under 304B of the Indian Penal Case and the victim girl was being pressurized to bring a motorcycle and since the death has occurred within seven years of marriage, the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of regular bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. It is accordingly rejected. However, trial of the case be expedited so as to conclude within a period of eight months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T