Satya Prakash Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70279 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-592 Year-2023 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Satya Prakash Sahani Son of Ashdeo Sahani Resident of village- Madipur Ward no. 10, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Rashmi Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 20-12-2024 Heard Mrs. Rashmi Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B & 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner in association of other co-accused is said to have killed the sister of the informant by pressing her neck on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that petitioner is the unfortunate husband of the deceased. He has never put her to cruelty in any manner whatsoever. It is further submitted that all the disputes amicably

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70279 of 2024(4) dt.20-12-2024 2/2 settled, and good sense has now prevailed in between the parties and the parties has compromised the matter. The petitioner has two criminal antecedents and has been languishing in custody since 06.02.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the informant's sister is said to have been killed by the petitioner and others within 11⁄2 years of her marriage. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the deceased is said to have been killed within 11⁄2 years of her marriage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. The petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the informant.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T