Ajay Kumar Rai @ Ajay Rai @ Ajay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20452 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-387 Year-2012 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== AJAY KUMAR RAI @ AJAY RAI @ AJAY KUMAR S/o Lalbabu Rai Resident of Village- Bhaba, P.S.- Harsidhi, Distt- East Champran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhannjay Kumar No 2 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-07-2020 The matter has been taken up in a court proceeding conducted through virtual mode.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B/34 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.09.2014, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21213 of 2014. The prosecution case, as per the written report of Ajay Tiwari, submitted to the Station House Officer, Harshidhi Police Station is to the effect that on 27.06.2012, the daughter of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20452 of 2020(2) dt.13-07-2020 2/3 the informant, Anjali Kumari was married with the petitioner Ajay Kumar, but subsequent to the marriage, further dowry demand of a motorcycle was made and due to non-fulfillment of the same, torture was inflicted upon the daughter of the informant. Ultimately, on 08.12.2012, the informant came to know that his daughter has been killed by all the accused person including the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the prayer for anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.09.2014, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21213 of 2014, but the prayer for anticipatory bail has been renewed on the ground that on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence.

Considering the fact that admittedly, the victim died within six months of marriage and thrust of accusation is against the petitioner being the husband of the victim, this Court is not inclined to revise earlier order.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected in connection with Harshidhi P.S. Case No. 387 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20452 of 2020(2) dt.13-07-2020 3/3 Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Amrendra/- U T