Dilip Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7564 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2021 Thana- HATHAURI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== DILIP SAH Son of Shivjee Sah Resident of Village - Simri, P.s.- Hathauri, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Fahimuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-08-2022 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 Mr. Anil Shah learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Hathauri P.S. Case No.107 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation, the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with Anil Shah in the year 2021. The matrimonial inmates subjected the daughter of the informant to cruelty for non fulfillment of dowry demand of T.V., gold chain etc. On 29.04.2021, the informant received the information that the accused persons had committed murder of her daughter. When the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7564 of 2022(2) dt.26-08-2022 2/2 informant went to the matrimonial house of her daughter, she saw her dead body.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is elder brother of the husband of deceased. He has no concern with day to day affairs of the couple and he resides separately from the husband of the deceased.

The witnesses in paragraph nos. 58, 59 and 60 have supported the entire occurrence. The petitioner is named in the FIR and there is allegation that the accused persons committed dowry death of the deceased Manchan Devi within only two months of her marriage. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is 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) niku/Sonali/- U T