Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9106/2024bail rejected

Meraj Dewan @ Meraj Shah @ Meraj Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-20Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9106 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-209 Year-2023 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== Meraj Dewan @ Meraj Shah @ Meraj Sah S/O Imam Hassan Dewan @ Imam Hasan Sah R/O Ward No. 1, Village- Belvaniya, Gokhula, P.SShikarpur, Distt.- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vatsal Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs.Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 20-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 209 of 2023 (G.R. No. 1047 of 2023) lodged under Sections 304B and 34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against eight named accused persons including the petitioner against whom the allegation has been made by the mother of the deceased that her daughter was killed by the petitioner and his family members for the demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner used to work outside the State and on the date

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9106 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/2 of occurrence, he returned from Rajauri, Jammu & Kashmir for which he has annexed return ticket as proof vide Annexure-2 of the bail petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 24.08.2023 having clean antecedent.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that question of alibi cannot be taken at this level particularly when the petitioner is the husband and he has been accused under Section 304B of the I.P.C..

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected at present, but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail nine months after framing of charge.

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