Munna Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 813 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36472 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-304 Year-2018 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya
 ======================================================

Munna Kumar (Male), aged about 28 years, son of Rameshwar Yadav, resident of village- Ghasibigha, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-02-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the

'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with

Sessions Trial No.227 of 2019/115 of 2019 arising out of

Belaganj PS Case No.304 of 2018 dated 02.10.2018, instituted

under Sections 304-B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner

as earlier such prayer was rejected by order dated 04.12.2019 in

Cr. Misc. No.45495 of 2019.

5. The allegation against the petitioner, along with Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36472 of 2020 dt.10-02-2021

others, is of killing his wife who was sister of the informant and

disposing off her body.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the allegation is false and there is no reason why the petitioner

would kill his wife and she herself had consumed poison. It was

submitted that the informant and other family members were

informed and they came and took part in the cremation also, but

later on they have filed this case with ulterior motive. Learned

counsel further submitted that the informant himself has stated

that he was informed of the death at 11.30 PM on 08.10.2018,

but there is no explanation as to why the FIR has been lodged

on 09.10.2018 at 3.00 PM. He submitted that the petitioner was

in custody since 16.11.2018.

7. Learned APP submitted that the Court has recorded

in the earlier rejection order that there is strong circumstantial

evidence and the diary also indicated that the petitioner and his

family members had not even bothered to inform either the

police or the family members of the deceased and the dead body

was disposed off behind their back. It was submitted that there

was also no attempt by the petitioner, who was the husband, to

take the deceased to any doctor for treatment if he was aware

that she had consumed poison, which clearly indicates that he Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36472 of 2020 dt.10-02-2021

had something to hide.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

10. However, the Court below shall expedite the trial

and conclude it at the earliest.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T