Ramakant Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.26510 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -21 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHESHKHUNT District- KHAGARIA ======================================================
1. Ramakant Singh , s/o Late Ambika Singh
2. Mritunjay Singh, s/o Ramakant Singh Both resident of village - Patla Police Station Maheshkhut District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Pronati Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-06-2016 Heard Sri Viveka Nand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared on behalf of the State. Two petitioners, who are father -in -law and elder brother of the husband of the deceased have approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 21 of 2016 registered for the offence under section 304B/201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is true that petitioners were arrayed as accused in the F.I.R. , but there is no specific accusation save and except general and ombnibus allegation. He submits that other two accused persons i.e. mother- in- law of the deceased and wife of petitioner no. 2 were extended the privilege of anticipatory bail by a bench of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26510 of 2016 (2) dt.30-06-2016 2/2 this court with certain conditions. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a prayer that in similar circumstances petitioners may be extended the same privilege. Besides hearing, I have also perused the material available on record. It is a case under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and there is accusation against the petitioners in the F.I.R. Normally in cases registered under section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code as indicated by the Apex Court it would not be appropriate to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T