Patna High CourtCR. MISC./652/2017rejected

Pramod Chandabanshi v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-11Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.652 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -125 Year- 2016 Thana -BARUN District- AURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Pramod Chandabanshi S/o Dara Chandrabanshi R/o Village - Nageshwarpur, P.S. - Barun, District - Aurangabad (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lal Bahadur Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Rajendra Singh Shastriji ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-01-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Barun P.S. Case No. 125/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant of this case is mother of the deceased. The informant has alleged that her daughter was married with this petitioner in the year 2013 and since then her husband and in-laws used to demand money. The daughter of the informant was tortured by this petitioner and her in-laws and ultimately they murdered the daughter of the informant and disposed of the dead body.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case has been lodged only to squeeze money from the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.652 of 2017 (2) dt.11-01-2017 2/2 petitioner. He never demanded any money nor there is specific allegation. So, the petitioner deserves bail. On the other hand learned Additional P.P. opposes the submission and insists that the petitioner is husband of the daughter of the informant and he was married in the year 2013. The wife of this petitioner died in his house for which no explanation is given from his side regarding cause of death. The dead body of the deceased was also made traceless. The allegation of demand of money is also specific against this petitioner. Considering the facts aforesaid and allegation of demand of money and torture and subsequently causing death of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Sanjay Kumar, J.) Rakhi U T