Santosh Puri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13925 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2018 Thana- JALALPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Santosh Puri, Son of Kameshwar Puri Resident of Village- Sawari Puri Tola, P.S.- Jalalpur, District- Saran at Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jalalpur P.S. Case No. 192 of 2018, registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the A.C.J.M-IX, Saran at Chapra.

The accusation is that marriage of Punam Devi was performed with the petitioner in the year 2006 and due to their wedlock, they were blessed with four children, but she was being tortured by her husband and in-laws due to nonfulfillment of demand of cash of Rs. One Lakh and, ultimately, she was killed and her dead body was removed by her husband and other in-laws.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13925 of 2019(4) dt.19-06-2019 2/2 petitioner submits that, admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the deceased in the year 2006, but she committed suicide by hanging. Further submission is that, in fact, deceased used to left the house for some days and when villagers started questioning about her absence then she committed suicide and she wrote a suicidal note stating that no person of her matrimonial house is responsible for her suicide. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

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