Patna High CourtCR. MISC./63626/2023rejected

Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-12-20Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63626 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2023 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== GUDDU KUMAR SON OF KAPIL DEO CHAUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - MAJHAULI, P.S. - BIDUPUR, DISTRICT - VAISHALI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 20-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of killing the daughter of the informant, due to non-fulfillment of further dowry demand.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. He submitted that there is no prior complaint with regard to assaulting/torturing and demand of dowry is against the petitioner. He is languishing in judicial custody since 10.04.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63626 of 2023(3) dt.20-12-2023 2/2 informant have opposed the application for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and he is the husband of the deceased and the sole responsibility of taking care of deceased is against her husband/petitioner but he did not do so. From the perusal of the Postmortem report of the deceased, it appears that the cause of death is Asphyxia due to strangulation, which corroborates the prosecution case. During investigation several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Arish/- U T