Santosh Sah v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15905 of 2015 (04) dt.30-06-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15905 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2014 Thana -DAUDPUR District- SARAN ====================================================== Santosh Sah .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh-Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhuranand Jha (A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 30-06-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Deceased, Chandrakala, a pregnant lady, who has been married with the petitioner on 25.04.2012, died on 31.08.2013 and for that, on 23.10.2013, instant complaint has been filed which has been sent to the local police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. wherein there happens to be categorical disclosure regarding demand of dowry as well as torture meted out to the deceased on that very score.

From perusal of the complaint petition, it is also apparent that on 31.08.2013, the prosecution party had gone to the place of deceased where, it has been alleged that accused persons forcibly taken their signature on a blank paper.

From perusal of the case diary, it is evident that informant (Para-4) and other family members (Paras-5 & 6) have supported the case of the prosecution. During course of investigation, it is also apparent that the I.O. had gone through the station diary wherein petition filed by the informant disclosing the fact that deceased died for natural death, has been traced out as

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15905 of 2015 (04) dt.30-06-2015 is evident from Paragraph-18. Furthermore, from the statement of the witnesses recorded under Paragraphs-14 and 16, it is apparent that on 31.08.2013, police had arrived at the house of the petitioner where informant had filed petition to that extent as incorporated under Paragraph-18. Furthermore, there happens to be no explanation at the end of the prosecution over failure to approach the police during the intervening period as well as disclosing the application, more particularly, on the reason of coercion as well as duress. Though, the petitioner happens to be the husband, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, deserves bail. Accordingly, petitioner, Santosh Sah is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in connection with Daudpur P. S. Case no.03 of 2014.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Vikash/- U T