Shri Kant Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33032 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -44 Year- 2017 Thana -CHENARI District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Shri Kant Pandey S/o Bihari Pandey @ Rajendra Pandey Resident of Village- Chenaridih, P.S. Chenari, District- Rohtas .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

20-07-2017 Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, husband of the deceased, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in Chenari P.S. Case No. 44 of 2017 registered for offence under Sections 304(B)/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased complained stomach pain and thereafter, she was treated, but she subsequently died and it was not a case for dowry death. He further submits that in the petition, he has stated that the marriage of deceased with petitioner was solemnized in the year 2009 and as such, there can't be application of Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, since marriage was solemnized beyond

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33032 of 2017 (2) dt.20-07-2017 2/2 eight years.

It is evident in the F.I.R. that the informant, who is resident of the same district, had complained that demand of Alto Car was made and due to non-fulfillment, it appears that his daughter was done to death and dead-body was disposed of on the same date i.e. on the date of death (27-02-2017). Considering the nature of allegation, as made in the F.I.R., I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T