Brajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20617 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -106 Year- 2015 Thana -MEHANDIA District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Brajesh Kumar Son of Basudeo Singh Resident of Village- Lodipur PS Mahendia, District Arwal.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Chandra Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is the husband and is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mehandia P.S. Case No. 106 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the uncle of the deceased lady is the informant in the present case whereas the father has come into the picture much later. It is further submitted that the father has given an affidavit stating that the girl died of natural fire and not otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that they had informed the father of the deceased lady and only after coming to the Patna Medical College and Hospital, they have turned around and filed the present case.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20617 of 2016 (10) dt.10-01-2017 P2/2 Diary in this case was called for earlier, which has, since been received.

After hearing learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the case diary, it appears that there is much evidence in the case diary to indicate that the girl was being tortured for dowry and also for the reason that very recently the younger sister and younger brother of the deceased lady had got married and there had been exchange of much dowry in the said two marriages resulting in further demands by the present petitioner who had since started torturing the girl and demanding further dowry. In view of the material which has surfaced in the case diary and also because the petitioner is the husband and he is morally bound to protect the victim lady, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner. It is accordingly rejected. (Anjana Mishra, J) Saif/- U T