Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16299 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-323 Year-2022 Thana- AMAUR District- Purnia ====================================================== Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Choudhary Son Of Shyam Lal @ Shobha Choudhary R/O Village- Basatpur, P.S.Amor, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr.Anil Kumar, A.P.P.

Mr. Madan Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is a case of dowry death. Informant's daughter was married with the petitioner on 12.5.2018. Later on, petitioner and his family members started subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. It is further alleged that on 10.7.2022 informant received information that his daughter sustained burn injuries. Thereafter, he rushed to Sadar Hospital, Purnea. It is further alleged that when the victim was taken to Bhagalpur for better treatment, she told her mother in the Ambulance that the petitioner harassed her for dowry and then sprinkled petrol on her body and set her on fire. Victim died during treatment.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact victim died of accidental fire caught her at the time of cooking for which UD Case No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16299 of 2024(4) dt.17-01-2025 2/2 07/2022 was also instituted. immediately after the incident on 1the petitioner is husband of the deceased who died of some ailment. Parents of deceased had also come and participated in the cremation. F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of 1 1⁄2 months of the occurrence without any explanation which renders the entire prosecution case doubtful.

5. Learned counsel for the State and informant oppose the prayer for bail. He submits that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is direct and specific allegation that he and his family members killed the deceased for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. Several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is husband of the deceased, who died in unnatural condition within seven years of marriage in her in-laws house, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T