Petition challenged rejection of regular bail in dowry death case (Sec 302, 304B IPC). Court found no change in circumstances or lack of complicity to warrant reconsideration of past rejections.
Prayer for regular bail dismissed.
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.59930 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2020 Thana- KHIRI MORE District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER
... ... Opposite Party/s
4 21-06-2023 The present petition is by way of third attempt at the behest of the petitioners for grant of regular bail in connection with Khiri More P.S.Case No. 1 of 2020 under Sections 302, 304B and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as the earlier prayers of the petitioners for grant of bail have all stood rejected by this Court.
The allegation is regarding the accused persons including the petitioners herein having killed the deceased victim lady on account of non-fulfillment of the demand for dowry.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not engaged in commission of any untoward incident and are languishing in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59930 of 2022(4) dt.21-06-2023 2/3
custody since 20.7.2020. It is also submitted that the trial is not progressing, inasmuch as the witnesses are not turning up.
Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that on an earlier occasion, this Court had gone through the entire records including the case diary and thereafter, being satisfied that the petitioners are having complicity in the alleged occurrence, had rejected their prayer for grant of bail vide order dated 03.03.2021, passed in Cr. Misc. no. 35844 of 2020. As far as the order dated 10.02.2022, passed in Cr. Misc. no. 45734 of 2021 is concerned, it has been submitted that it is apparent from a bare perusal of the same that a plea was taken before the said Hon’ble Bench that the petitioner of that case (husband of the deceased victim lady) is working in C.I.S.F. and on the alleged date of occurrence, he was posted in Kerala, implying thereby that it is not the petitioner but the other accused persons, who are responsible for the killing of the deceased victim lady and not the husband, who was not present at the place of occurrence. Thus, the complicity of the petitioners is writ large from the records in the alleged occurrence.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that there is no change in circumstance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59930 of 2022(4) dt.21-06-2023 3/3
so as to warrant re-consideration of the prayer of the petitioners for grant of bail apart from the fact that the petitioners are having complicity in the occurrence pertaining to killing of the deceased victim lady, I do not find any merit in the present petition, hence the same stands dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Ajay/- U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners entitled to regular bail despite complicity in the dowry-related death of their wife.
Whether new circumstances exist to reconsider previous bail rejection orders.
Ram Pravesh Ram
Nanda Devi
The State of Bihar
Mohit Kumar Shah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
