Guddu Soni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21123 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -130 Year- 2015 Thana -KARAHGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Guddu Soni Son of Siyaram Seth @ Siyaram Soni, R/o Village- Seema, P.S.- Pautha, District- Aurangabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Kargahar P.S. Case No. 130/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The brother of the deceased made allegation that his sister was married to the petitioner in the year 2010. When the informant went to see his sister on 05.04.2015, the informant came to know that his sister was killed and her dead-body was cremated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is of course, the husband of the deceased, but wife of the petitioner died in the year 2013 due to illness. She gave birth to a female child and thereafter, she developed different ailments. The informant was informed that the deceased was under treatment of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21123 of 2017 (3) dt.20-06-2017 2/2 a doctor, but from perusal of the case-diary, it appears that the informant has narrated the entire story making specific allegation that how his sister was subjected to physical and mental torture. Even in the year 2013, she was severely tortured at the time of giving birth to the child due to non-fulfillment demand of dowry. The informant and the entire family members have stated that the petitioner killed his wife and hurriedly cremated the dead-body, and the petitioner neither produced any chit of paper to show that his wife was given treatment nor the police was informed about the death of the deceased.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T