Dismissed¶18

Pradeep Kumar Sahani @ Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Apr 2024CR. MISC./6656/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6656 of 2024, oral order dated 18-04-2024 by Justice Partha Sarthy; regular bail application rejected; petitioner Pradeep Kumar Sahani @ Pradeep Kumar, husband of deceased; Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 340 of 2022, District East Champaran; sections 304B and 34 IPC; alleged dowry demand of Rs. 10,00,000 for starting a business; postmortem cause of death asphyxia due to hanging; petitioner in custody since 4.7.2023; charge-sheet submitted; trial Court directed to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

No bail relief granted; sole direction issued that the learned trial Court expedite the trial. ¶18

Pradeep Kumar Sahani @ Pradeep Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6656 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-340 Year-2022 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Pradeep Kumar Sahani @ Pradeep Kumar S/O Jhunilal Sahani VillageMajhariya, Ps. Piprakothi, Dist. East Champaran.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, APP ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 18-04-2024

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶11

APP for the State.

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case no. 340 of 2022 registered under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his daughter who was married to the petitioner herein was done to death on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry by way of Rs. 10,00,000 for starting a business.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason of his being the husband of the deceased. The allegations are false and concocted. Even in the postmortem examination,

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6656 of 2024(3) dt.18-04-2024 2/2

¶16

the cause of death is said to be asphyxia due to hanging. The petitioner is in custody since 4.7.2023.

¶17

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R, the petitioner being the husband of the deceased and the material that has transpired in course of investigation including chargesheet having been submitted under section 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

¶19

Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶20

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶21

Harsh/- U T

Pradeep Kumar Sahani @ Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Sahani @ Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulochna Kumari Vs the State of Bihar

Salma Bibi Vs The State of Bihar

Pintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Gaurav Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Kailash Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar