Munna @ Rakesh Ranjan @ Rakesh Kumar Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28868 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2015 Thana -SHIVSAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Munna @ Rakesh Ranjan @ Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, Son of Bigan Sah, resident of Village- Parari, P.S. Sheosagar, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER -------------- 27-03-2017 Heard.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sheosagar P.S. Case No.101 of 2015 registered under Sections 323, 498(A) and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas. The accusation is of torturing the deceased, the daughter of the informant, by her husband (petitioner) and other-in-laws for non fulfillment of the dowry demand and also causing her death by administering poison to her.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, the daughter of the informant. In fact, the deceased, the daughter of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28868 of 2016 (6) dt.27-03-2017 2/2 the informant, became ill seriously and she was carried by the petitioner to the hospital for treatment and the information in this regard was also given to the parents of the deceased and the deceased, the daughter of the informant, died in the hospital but with an ulterior motive, the present case has been lodged by the informant.

The viscera report of the dead body of the deceased, as called for vide order dated 03.10.2016, has been received to this Court vide letter no.469 dated 28.02.2017 of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar, Patna, flagged at 'A" from which it appears that Thimet was detected in the viscera of the dead body of the deceased.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T