Chandan Das @ Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18408 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -95 Year- 2014 Thana -BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. CHANDAN DAS @ CHANDAN KUMAR Son of Bino Das, Resident of Mohalla - Pahari Gachhi, Navaka Tola, P.S. Muffasil, District - Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Bharat Bhushan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Begusarai Muffasil P.S. case No.95 of 2014 under Section 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, father of the victim, disclosed that his daughter was married to the petitioner in the year 2013 but the petitioner and his family members subjected her to different sorts of physical and mental torture. When the informant went to take his daughter, the petitioner and others refused to allow her to go in the company of informant and immediately thereafter the informant came to know that his daughter is traceless. He has every belief that petitioner and others must have killed his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18408 of 2017 (4) dt.11-07-2017 2/2 daughter and disposed of her dead body.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police after investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 365 of the IPC but it appears that the victim is still traceless and the petitioner is husband of Sushma Kumari, the victim, and Sushma Kumari became traceless just within one year of her marriage from her in-laws house. The informant has made specific allegation against the petitioner that even during one year of marriage the petitioner and other in-laws subjected her to all sorts of torture due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T