Dismissed

Raja Upadhaya v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC28 Nov 2022CR. MISC./43514/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under maintenance and alimony linked to Sections 302, 120B/34 IPC, the petitioner sought release for murdering his wife. The court rejected the prayer, deeming the petitioner the main accused due to強度 allegations of an illicit affair leading to the murder, noting no good relations and unnatural death within seven years of marriage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's bail prayer stands rejected; he may renew prayer after six months if no significant progress in trial.

Raja Upadhaya Vs The State of Bihar — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43514 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2022 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Raja Upadhaya Son of Late Ramadhar Upadhya Resident of Sitaram Path, P.S- Shastri Nagar, Dist- Patna, Permanent Address- village- karmawa, P.SDhaka, Dist- East champaran

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Ravi Pandey Son of Shayam Sundar Pandey Resident of Birla Mandir Road, Bhawar Pokhar, P.S- Pirbahore, Dist- patna

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP For the Informant/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 28-11-2022

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with ShastriNagar P.S. Case No. 217 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

As per the prosecution, the informant’s sister was strangulated to death by this petitioner and his family members.

¶16

The main submissions advanced by learned counsel Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, appearing for the petitioner are that in the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43514 of 2022(4) dt.28-11-2022 2/3

¶18

FIR there is no allegation of dowry demand and committing cruelty with the victim by this petitioner and other co-accused persons, in fact on the alleged date and time of occurrence the victim locked herself in a room in following with a family dispute and when she did not open the door of the room then the petitioner himself informed the parental family members of the deceased and there is no evidence in respect of the alleged illicit affair and the alleged offence of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and there is a child aged about three years from the wedlock between this petitioner and the deceased.

¶19

On the contrary, learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, appearing for the informant and learned APP Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, appearing for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, had love affair with an other woman which was always objected by the deceased and owing to that reason the deceased and this petitioner frequently quarreled and finally this petitioner along with his family members strangulated the deceased to death.

¶20

Heard both the sides and perused the FIR, inquest report and the order impugned. The deceased died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and as per the FIR there was

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43514 of 2022(4) dt.28-11-2022 3/3

¶22

not a good relation between the petitioner and the deceased and according to the allegation the petitioner was having an illicit affair with an other woman which was the genesis of the occurrence of murder, in view of the nature of the allegation the petitioner appears to be the main accused of this case. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner does not deserve to the privilege of bail, hence his bail prayer stands rejected.

¶23

Petitioner may renew his bail prayer after six month, if any significant progress is not made in his trial.

¶24

(Shailendra Singh, J.)

¶25

maynaz/-

¶26

U T

Raja Upadhaya v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Upadhaya 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

Pramod Bahardar Vs The State of Bihar

Bhagelu Singh @ Shakti Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anu Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Shakil Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Meena Devi @ Mina Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Dhiraj Kumar Vs the State of Bihar