Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Kumar Keshari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84975 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2019 Thana- NARAINPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== PAPPU KUMAR @ PAPPU KUMAR KESHARI Son of Rajendra Prasad Keshri Resident of Village - Dagar Par Narayanpur, P.S.- Narayanpur, Distt.- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Suraj Narain Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner, who was married to the daughter of the informant in the year 2018, along with other accused persons tortured his daughter and finally on the date of occurrence strangulated her to death for nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84975 of 2019(3) dt.18-03-2020 2/3 that the allegations as levelled in the FIR are false and concocted and are not supported by the findings in the postmortem report wherein there is clear finding that the death took place as a result of hanging leading to asphyxia. It is further submitted that the police did not find the case to be true under different sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner is in custody since 26.03.2019 and has no criminal antecedent.

It is submitted by learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the witnesses, who have been examined in course of investigation, have supported the allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the accused persons including this petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his application for bail is rejected.

In view of the facts stated above, the learned Court below is directed to expedite the trial and the petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail after a period of six months

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84975 of 2019(3) dt.18-03-2020 3/3 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in Court below, in case there is no substantial progress in the trial. (Partha Sarthy, J) sushma/- U T