Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17910/2021rejected

Bachcha Sah @ Bachcha Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-06Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17910 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2019 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== BACHCHA SAH @ BACHCHA KUMAR SAH Son of Ram Dayal Sah Resident of Village - Madhurapur, P.S. - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-01-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 290 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner has committed no offence as alleged. He did not made any demand of dowry or torture. The deceased has committed suicide. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17910 of 2021(2) dt.06-01-2022 2/2 husband of the deceased and is named accused in the first information report and there is direct allegation against him of demand of dowry and torture. Moreover, pettiioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping the deceased with full honour and dignity, in which he failed. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T