Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1046/2025dismissed

Umesh Saw @ Umesh Sao v. The State Of Bihar

2025-03-19Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1046 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2024 Thana- MUFFASIL District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Umesh Saw @ Umesh Sao S/O Late Hari Saw R/O Vill.- Naghara, P.S.- Mufassil, Dist.- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons are said to have killed the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is father-in-law of the deceased. The husband of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1046 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2025 2/2 deceased is already in judicial custody. The postmortem report does not corroborate the prosecution case. He further submits that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 16.11.2024. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the informant's daughter was married on 18.04.2024 and the occurrence took place on 12.09.2024 i.e. within five months.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is ample material against the petitioner in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Aurangabad (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.345 of 2024.

7. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charges. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T