Dismissed

Pappu Sao v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Feb 2021CR. MISC./30904/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous matter, the Patna High Court rejected the petitioner’s bail plea in a dowry death case under Sections 304(B) and 34 IPC. The Court held that the husband failing to explain the cause of death found by F.S.L. report on celphos was insufficient grounds for bail. The trial was directed to conclude within nine months.

What did the court decide?

The bail plea was rejected. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within nine months.

Pappu Sao Vs The State of Bihar — Narcotics (NDPS) | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30904 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2019 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad

¶3

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

¶4

PAPPU SAO S/o Shiv Narayan Saw Resident of Village-Aranda, P.S.-Obra, District-Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Chandra Singh, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 02-02-2021

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to

¶14

remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

¶16

The petitioner seeks bail in Obra P.S. case No.128 of 2019 registered under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Daudnagar, District Aurangabad.

¶17

Allegation is that the accused persons including the petitioner caused death of the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

¶18

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2019 and has got no

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30904 of 2020(3) dt.02-02-2021 2/2

¶20

criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case.

¶21

On behalf of the State and learned counsel for the informant, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He is the husband of the deceased and onus is on him to explain the cause of death of the deceased. As per the F.S.L. report, aluminium phosphide commercially known as celphos is found.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.

¶23

The Trial Court is directed to take all necessary steps to conclude the trial preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶24

The F.S.L. report be returned at the earliest.

¶25

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶26

Narendra/-

¶27

U T

Pappu Sao v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Sao 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

Prem Prakash Rai @ Buloo Rai @ Bhuli Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Babulal Bhar @ Babulal @ Babulal Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Smt. Amita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Vikram Kumar @ Vikram Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Laxmi Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Makaldeo Yadav Vs the State of Bihar