Amarnath Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24874 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-523 Year-2019 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Amarnath Manjhi Son Of Baban Manjhi R/O Village- Solhanda, P.S.- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Murlidhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-07-2021 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard both parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 523 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, daughter of the informant was married with the petitioner six years ago. It is alleged that informant's daughter was subjected to torture and harassment for dowry by the petitioner and her in-laws. It is further alleged that the daughter of informant has been killed by the accused persons including this petitioner due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24874 of 2021(2) dt.27-07-2021 2/2 petitioner is husband of the deceased and he never demanded any dowry or tortured the deceased. The deceased died due to illness and there is false allegation against this petitioner that he has got illicit relation with his Bhabhi. Petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2019 having no criminal antecedent. Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is husband of the deceased and there is direct and specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner is husband of the deceased and deceased died in unnatural circumstance within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T