Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7828/2017dismissed

Raushan Kumar @ Anjani Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-18Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7828 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -587 Year- 2015 Thana -NAUBATPUR District- PATNA ====================================================== Raushan Kumar @ Anjani Kumar sonof Ram Murti Prasad @ Ram Murti Sao, resident of Village- Nagwon, P.s.- Naubatpur, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of bail in connection with Naubatpur P.S.Case No.587 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 326, 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner and the deceased had solemnized love marriage. As a matter of fact, she committed suicide and the petitioner has himself taken the deceased to the hospital. Had it been intention of the petitioner to hide the facts, he would have not taken the deceased to the Hospital and secondly, the petitioner filed a petition stating that the petitioner may be falsely implicated in any case as he has solemnized love marriage with the deceased and the family members of the deceased was not happy with him. He has also annexed suicide-notes but the investigation has been done on those

materials only and the petitioner has been implicated in this case at the instance of the informant, who was not happy with the petitioner, as he had got love marriage with the deceased. The petitioner is in custody since 22nd December, 2015. Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Having heard both sides and from perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner is husband of the deceased and there is allegation against the petitioner of demand of dowry and torture and the death of the deceased was unnatural.

So far petition filed by petitioner is concerned, from Annexure-4, it appears that the same has been written on 18.05.2016 and received in the Beur Jail on 22.05.2016 much after lodging F.I.R.. Further, from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the petitioner had taken to the deceased to the Hospital and thereafter he fled away.

Considering all the facts, as aforesaid, of the matter, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the prayer of the petitioner is rejected.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/-