Kumar Shushant v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40827 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2016 Thana -RAMPUR District- GAYA ====================================================== Kumar Shushant, Son of Arun Kumar Singh, Resident of Mohalla - House No. 171, A.P. Colony, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr.Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastriji, A.P.P. Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.
22-10-2016 Heard Sri Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajendra Singh Shastriji, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel, who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of informant. The petitioner, who was husband of the deceased who died only within 29 days of her marriage, has prayed for grant of bail in Rampur P.S. Case No. 109 of 2016 registered for offence under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case, at the time of preparing inquest report, injury on neck as well as head was found on the person of the deceased, still to the reasons best known to the informant, he
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40827 of 2016 (3) dt.22-10-2016 2/2 submitted a report before the police, as if it was a case of accidental death. During investigation, it has also come that the informant had collected huge amount from the accused side and even, he took back the car, which was provided as dowry to the petitioner and on the next date, he lodged the present case. In normal course, the conduct of the informant was itself doubtful, but fact remains that it was a case of death of a married girl within 29 days of the marriage and there was injury on the person of the deceased.
In this case, the statement of the mother of the victim was also recorded.
In view of facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of bail.
Dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T