Pawan Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19215 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2021 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== Pawan Sah Son Of Late Bateshwar Sah R/O Village- Shanti Nagar Ward No.- 2 Madhya, P.S.- Dhamdaha, District- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 08-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No.30 of 2021 instituted under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the allegation in the FIR, right from the solemnization of marriage, the petitioner was demanding dowry and in absence of that, it is alleged that he always used to assault the victim lady. The informant further alleged that, he being a poor person, was not in a position to fulfill the demand of motorcycle by the petitioner herein. It has further been alleged that he always used to threaten that the victim lady that family

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19215 of 2022(3) dt.08-08-2022 2/2 members cannot stop him from the remarrying. On the fateful day, the informant has alleged that there had been a fight and soon thereafter she was informed that her daughter is hanging on a fan. She has alleged that by conspiracy the petitioner herein to kill her daughter.

Learned APP submits that the petitioner being husband cannot exonerate himself from the responsibility of the said death/killing and further there is allegation that he always used to assault the lady for demand of dowry, he does not deserve bail.

Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is husband, specific allegations have been alleged in the FIR and further alleged that she was regularly assaulted, this Court is not inclined to grant him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T