Manoj Choudhai @ Manoj Chaudhary And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.11280 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -68 Year- 2013 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- BHOJPUR ======================================================
1. Manoj Choudhari @ Manoj Chaudhary, S/o Sri Sakal Chaudhary
2. Soni Devi, W/O Manoj Chaudhary
3. Sakal Choudhari, S/O Late Yaduvanshi Chaudhari, Both Resident of village- Milki, P.S.- Udbant Nagar, District- Bhojpur at Ara .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Bhojpur Mahila P.S. Case No.68 of 2013 for allegedly having committed the offences under Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The daughter of the informant had been duly treated by private Doctor, who has also given statement that she was under his treatment for having suffered from acute Bacillary dysentery. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11280 of 2015 (3) dt.09-07-2015 2/2 the petitioners had duly informed the informant's side regarding the death of their daughter and though they had participated in the cremation, yet as an afterthought the present case has been lodged only to harass and humiliate these petitioners.
Learned counsel for the State, while pointing out to several paragraphs of the case diary, has submitted that the deceased was married in the year 2012 and ever since her marriage, she was being harassed for dowry. He further submits that the Doctor, who had supposedly treated the deceased, has also given his statement that she was being treated by him for merely a week. However, the girl was surreptitiously cremated after her death for the reasons best known to these petitioners.
Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners.
The miscellaneous application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T