Uttam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17770 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2018 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Uttam Kumar, Son of Tyagi Yadav, Resident of Village-Doudpur, P.SMakhdumpur (Tehta-O.P.) District-Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nitya Nand Neeraj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta-O.P.) P.S. Case No.335 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the marriage of the daughter of informant was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2016. The further allegation is that after marriage, the petitioner and his family members started torturing the deceased for demand of dowry, motorcycle, cash and gold chain. It has further been alleged that when demand of dowry was not fulfilled, the deceased was assaulted and administered poison.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17770 of 2019(4) dt.18-07-2019 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is husband of the deceased, who has committed suicide and all the witness has stated in the case diary that the deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison. Learned counsel for the State submits that under Section 113(e) of the Evidence Act, the presumption is against the petitioner inasmuch as deceased has died within seven years of marriage and further there is specific allegation of demand of dowry and administering poison.

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and taking into consideration the fact that deceased has been killed within seven years of marriage, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sanjeev/- U T