Allowed

Sonu Kumar Pandit v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Jul 2022CR. MISC./7535/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a dowry death case involving charges under IPC Sections 304(B) and 34. The order stipulated conditions including cooperation in trial and verification of antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each subject to specified conditions.

Sonu Kumar Pandit Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7535 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2021 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria

¶3

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

¶4

Sonu Kumar Pandit Son Of Sudhir Pandit R/O Village- Sumeri Tola, P.S.Parbatta (Bharatkhand), District- Khagaria

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viveka Nandsingh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 06-07-2022

¶14

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be

¶15

removed within four weeks of starting of Court proceeding in physical mode in normal course.

¶16

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

¶17

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant’s sister Pusha Kumari was married with Sumit Kumar Pandit @ Dharo Pandit two years ago. After solemnization of marriage accused persons including the petitioner started torturing her for demand of dowry. On objection raised by his sister, accused persons used to assault her. His mother-in-law (Saas), father-in-

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7535 of 2022(2) dt.06-07-2022 2/3

¶20

law (Sasur), husband and Dewar were demanding 02 bhar gold chain, diwan bed and Rs. 2,00,000/- On 12.06.2021 informant came to know that accused petitioners killed his sister Pusha Kumari for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. When informant and his family members went to sasural of his his, they saw his sister was lying dead and accused persons were absconded.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the petitioner is brotherin-law of the deceased and the petitioner has no concern at all from the family affairs of the deceased. He further submits that co-accused namely Sudhir Pandit has been granted bail vide order dated 30.03.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 64176 of 2021 and another co-accused Indu Devi has been granted bail vide order dated 12.04.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65837 of 2021 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 16.06.2021.

¶22

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7535 of 2022(2) dt.06-07-2022 3/3

¶25

Court below where the case is pending in connection with Sessions Trial No. 226 of 2021 arising out of Parbatta P.S. Case No. 238 of 2021, with the following conditions :-

¶26

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶27

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶28

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶29

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶30

Ibrar//-

¶31

U T

Sonu Kumar Pandit v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar Pandit 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

Guru Dev Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ravishek Kumar @ Narayan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Ashok Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Jhunu Marwari @ Ranjan Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Birendra Sao Vs the State of Bihar

Munna Yadav Vs The State of Bihar