Dismissed

Jay Dayal Ram v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Oct 2020CR. MISC./18568/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application arising from a dowry death case under Sections 304-B, 201, and 120-B IPC, the Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's plea for regular bail. The bench held that the victim died within a year of marriage in matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances, making the petitioner undeserving of bail at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner stood rejected; petitioner directed to renew prayer after one year if trial shows no progress.

Jay Dayal Ram Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18568 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2019 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

JAY DAYAL RAM Son of Late Shivchand Ram Resident of Village - Dhanauti, P.S.- Panapur, Distt.- Sarana at Chapra.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 07-10-2020 Heard Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, learned counsel for

¶13

the petitioner and Mr. Parmanand Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State through video conferencing.

¶14

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 220 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

¶15

The allegation against the petitioner as per the First Information Report is that the daughter of the informant namely, Sarswati Kumari (since deceased) was married to Vijay Ram on 4.7.2018 and on 21.11.2019 she was killed by the petitioner along with his other family members.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18568 of 2020(4) dt.07-10-2020 2/3

¶18

petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. He happens to be the father-in-law of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that there is no ingredient of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code in the First Information Report and falsity of the First Information Report is apparent from the fact that even the co-accused residing outside India has been dragged in this case. Learned counsel further submits that all the family members of the deceased had participated in the funeral of the deceased.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail and referring to paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and other paragraphs of the case diary submits that just before the deceased was killed by the accused persons she was tortured by the petitioner and his family members due to the fact that the deceased was willing to go to her maternal home for attending marriage ceremony which was not being allowed by the accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that dead body of the deceased has not been cremated and the same was thrown in the river Gandak . Learned counsel also submits that death of the deceased has taken place within one year of the marriage in suspicious condition in her matrimonial home and the petitioner is father-in-law of the

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18568 of 2020(4) dt.07-10-2020 3/3

¶21

deceased. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve regular bail.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record and the fact that within one year of marriage, the victim has died in her matrimonial home, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶23

Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

¶24

Petitioner may however renew his prayer for bail after one year from today if the trial does not show any progress.

¶25

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶26

S.Ali/-

¶27

U T

Jay Dayal Ram v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Dayal Ram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanju Ray Vs the State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Kuamr Vs The State of Bihar

Nipu Devi Vs the State of Bihar

Shobha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Sanaullah Mian @ Sanaullah Ansari @ Sainullah Ansari Vs The State of Bihar