Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11412/2016rejected

Mantosh Kumar Sah @ Mantosh Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2016-06-22Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11412 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -226 Year- 2015 Thana -PAHARPUR DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Mantosh Kumar Sah @ Mantosh Sah S/o Radha Sah, Resident of VillageBara Lugania, P.S.- Paharpur, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Yadav, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Paharpur P.S. Case No. 226/2015, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that his daughter was married to the petitioner in the year 2011, but the petitioner and others were torturing his daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and further alleged that they killed her daughter and cremated her dead body.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is husband of the deceased and the deceased was never tortured by either the petitioner or his family members. The deceased was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11412 of 2016 (3) dt.22-06-2016 2/2 suffering from ailments and she was admitted in the hospital. During the course of treatment she died.

It is submitted that other accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail vide order passed in Cr. Misc. 8878/2016.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that petitioner is husband of the deceased and the deceased died within four years of her marriage and the informant made specific allegation that the petitioner was torturing his daughter, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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