Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(From The Official Chambers Via Video Conferencing) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15462 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2019 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR @ RAHUL KUMAR SAHANI Son of Shivshankar Sahani Resident of Village - Mohamadpur, Khaje Tola, Chainpur, P.S.- Karja, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-01-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Karja P.S. Case No. 134 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the marriage of deceased Chanda Kumari was solemnized with the present petitioner. The accused persons including the present petitioner inflicted atrocities on deceased for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. On 26.05.2019 the informant made several telephone calls but those calls remained

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15462 of 2021(2) dt.17-01-2022 2/2 unreplied due to which some suspicion arose. The informant rushed to the matrimonial house of the deceased where he came to know that the accused persons after committing the murder of the deceased concealed her dead body.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and at the time of occurrence he was not present in the village rather he was present on his working place. The FIR shows itself that the accused persons inflicted torture on the deceased for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The deceased died within one year of her marriage in mysterious circumstances in her matrimonial house. As such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T