Dismissed

Amritpal Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC17 Dec 2014CR. MISC./27911/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought bail in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 304B, 498A, 120B, 201 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court rejected the bail prayer due to the petitioner's confession and corroboration by witnesses, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected; trial directed to be concluded within one year.

Amritpal Singh Vs The State Of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27911 of 2014

¶2

Arising Out of P.S. Case No. -76 Year- 2013 Thana -BEGUSARAI GRP CASE District-

¶3

BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Amritpal Singh, Son of Amrik Singh, Resident of Village - Amardas Colony, Naraingadh, P.S.- Chehra, District- Amritsar, Punjab. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. (APP)

¶4

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA

¶5

ORAL ORDER

¶6

3 17-12-2014 Heard both sides.

¶7

The petitioner Amritpal Singh seeks bail in Barauni Rail P.S. Case No. 76 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 304B, 498(A), 120(B), 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶8

The informant has made allegation that while the petitioner was coming with his wife from Dibrugarh to Amritsar, the petitioner killed his wife in the toilet of a compartment.

¶9

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was registered on 01.11.2013, but much prior to registering of the case, the petitioner was taken into custody. The entire allegation is false and concocted.

¶10

From perusal of the records, it appears that besides

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27911 of 2014 (3) dt.17-12-2014

¶12

2/2

¶13

the fact that other witnesses have stated that it was the petitioner who killed his wife by stabbing her in the toilet of a compartment, the petitioner also confessed his guilt in the police station.

¶14

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is rejected.

¶15

The case (S. Tr. No. 204 of 2014) is pending before the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge II, Begusarai. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year from today.

¶16

If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid

¶17

period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

¶18

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)

¶19

Dilip/-

¶20

U T

Amritpal Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amritpal Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guddu Prasad Chaurasiya Vs The State Of Bihar

Reshma Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Ashok Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Parwati Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Bablu Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Abhimanyu Dubey Vs The State Of Bihar