Sunil Bind @ Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15893 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-444 Year-2019 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== 1.

SUNIL BIND @ SUNIL KUMAR Son of Anarjeet Yadav Resident of Village-Nati, Police Station-Chainpur, District-Kaimur. 2.

Anarjeet Bind Son of Late Sita Bind Resident of Village-Nati, Police Station-Chainpur, District-Kaimur.

3.

Hirawati Devi Wife of Anarjeet Bind Resident of Village-Nati, Police Station-Chainpur, District-Kaimur.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Singh, Addl Public Prosecutor ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-09-2020 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Chainpur P.S. Case No. 444 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that his daughter was married with co-accused Dhanraj Bind on 19.05.2019. After marriage, the accused persons including these petitioners started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the daughter of the informant was subjected to torture and cruelty. Ultimately, on 26.12.2019. his daughter was done to death by the accused persons.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15893 of 2020(3) dt.02-09-2020 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that petitioners have been falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation. Petitioner no. 1 is Dewar, petitioner no. 2 is father-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased died due to abdominal pain. Medical prescription is at Annexure-2. Petitioners have got clean antecedent.

Learned APP vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It appears that the daughter of informant died within one year of her marriage at her sasural. From para 10 of the case diary, the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Bhabua who treated the victim in the OPD has stated that she had advised ultra sound to the victim and without informing her family members the accused persons took away the victim from the hospital. There is no medical confirmation on the cause of death of victim.

Considering the facts aforesaid and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T