Mukesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16340 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -432 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHUA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Mukesh Paswan, Son of Ranjeet Das Resident of Village -Rampur Singhara, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Ms. Anuradha Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. L.K. Sharma (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mahua P.S. Case No. 432 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, mother of Sarita Devi, alleged that her daughter was married to Mukesh Paswan, the petitioner. The daughter of the informant gave birth to three children but her husband and other in-laws began to torture her due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. They were demanding Rs. 2 lacs. The informant alleged that her daughter is traceless and she has got reason to believe that the husband of her daughter killed her daughter and dispose of her dead body.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16340 of 2016 (5) dt.18-01-2017 2/2 course of investigation, many independent witnesses have been examined in paragraphs 7, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the case diary and they disclosed that the victim used to flee away from the house of her husband but she is still traceless. It is further submitted that the petitioner has stated that the victim might have solemnized marriage and therefore she was not returning to her house. Still the victim is traceless and the petitioner or any other witness has not stated as to whereabouts of the victim. The informant and other witnesses have very categorically stated that the petitioner might have killed his wife and dispose of her dead body in order to screen out the evidence.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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