Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19666/2019bail rejected

Surendra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2019-07-25Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19666 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2017 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Surendra Mahto, Son of Late Nandu Mahto Resident of Village - Barkagaon, Naya Tola, P.S.- Karja, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Syed Firoz Raza For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Zainul Abedin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Karja P.S. Case No.170 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 304(B)/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with deceased, Sangeeta Kumari, on 09.06.2014. It has further been alleged that soon after the marriage, deceased was being tortured by the petitioner and his family members for a motorcycle as a dowry. It has fuhrer been alleged that on 05.10.2017, the informant got information that the petitioner along with other family members committed murder of the deceased on 04.10.2017 and disposed the dead body.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19666 of 2019(4) dt.25-07-2019 2/2 Mr. Syed Firoz Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is husband of the deceased and has falsely been implicated in this case and he further submits that on the date of occurrence, petitioner was not in the village and the witness during the course of investigation has stated that deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. 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 death of the deceased has taken place within seven years of her marriage in the matrimonial home in suspicious condition and dead body was also disposed in order to conceal evidence, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.

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