The Patna High Court rejected an application for regular bail filed by the husband of the deceased in a dowry death case, holding that he was solely responsible for her death and had no fresh grounds for bail.
Prayer for regular bail was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24405 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2019 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan
======================================================
MAHESHWAR KUMAR SINGH @ MANNA @ MUNNA SINGH @ MAHESHWAR SINGH S/O- Prem Shankar Singh Resident of Village - Santhi, P.S. Raghunathpur, District - Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anurag Saurav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.K. Tiwary, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
3 09-12-2020
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 01 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 304(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner has been refused by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42902 of 2019. The petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased and he is the sole bread earner of his family and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 02.01.2019
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24405 of 2020(3) dt.09-12-2020 2/2
i.e. more than one and half years. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is husband of the deceased and he is solely responsible for the death of her wife. Moreover, earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner has been rejected on merit after considering the material available on the record. Now no fresh ground has taken by the petitioner for renewal of his prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of this petitioner is rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
brajesh/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in an offence under Sections 304(b)/34 of the IPC?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maheshwar Kumar Singh @ Manna @ Munna Singh @ Maheshwar Singh
The State of Bihar
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
