Sambhu Manjhi @ Kali Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11701 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-431 Year-2019 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== SAMBHU MANJHI @ KALI MANJHI Son of Late Chanar Manjhi Resident of Village - Karmoari, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Indrajeet Bhusan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 07-10-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State, through video conferencing. The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 431 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, the daughter of the informant, who was married to the son of the petitioner, was done to death by the accused persons including the petitioner herein for nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations as levelled in the FIR are false and concocted. The allegations are general and omnibous in nature. There has been no demand of dowry and the daughter of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11701 of 2020(5) dt.07-10-2020 2/2 informant died as a result of an accident wherein she sustained head injury and she succumbed to the said injury on the way to hospital. It is further submitted that the independent witnesses have not supported the allegations against this petitioner in course of investigation. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

Case diary called for in the case, has been received. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations as levelled in the FIR together with the material that has transpired in course of investigation including the statement of the wife of this petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. In case the petitioner surrenders within a period of eight weeks and prays for regular bail, his application for bail shall be considered without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sushma/- U T