Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13420 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-484 Year-2018 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna ====================================================== RAUSHAN KUMAR Son of Dhaneshwar Paswan Resident of VillageDeokali, P.S.- Dhanarua, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhinay Raj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-09-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State through video conferencing.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 484 of 2018, registered under Section 304(B)/34 of Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Masaurhi, Patna.

The accusation is that marriage of Puja Kumari, daughter of informant Sailendra Paswan was performed with the petitioner Raushan Kumar in the year 2017 and she was taken in Bidai, but after two months of the marriage, his daughter was being tortured through various modes for demand of dowry. In the meantime, Raushan Kumar (Petitioner), husband of his daughter Puja Kumari, enticed away a girl,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13420 of 2020(4) dt.02-09-2020 2/2 namely, Binny Kumari, daughter of his aunt, and used to come at house, occasionally, and during that period, Raushan Kumar (Petitioner) used to give threatening to his daughter Puja that she will be killed. On 31.12.2018, informant came to know about killing of his daughter Puja Kumari by administering poison then he went to matrimonial house of his daughter Puja Kumari, where he saw dead body of his daughter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, admittedly, the petitioner is the husband of deceased, who died within two years of her marriage at her matrimonial house, but at that time, petitioner was not present at his house, as he had left the house in connection with enticing away a girl, namely, Binny Kumari. Further submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 30.09.2019.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T