Chitranjan Sao v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26687 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2019 Thana- ANTI District- Gaya ====================================================== CHITRANJAN SAO S/o Suresh Sao Village-Anti, Police Station-Anti, District-Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamal Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-10-2020 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard both parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in Anti P.S. Case No. 40 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, informant's daughter was married with this petitioner in the year 2014. After marriage, this petitioner and his family members started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, on 14.05.2019 petitioner and other accused persons burnt the daughter of informant to death.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26687 of 2020(2) dt.13-10-2020 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner is husband of the deceased Kiran Kumari. During trial the prosecution witness namely, P.W. 1-brother, P.W. 2-cousin, PW 3-father, PW 4- cousin, P.W. 5-mother, and all of them declared hostile. Only I.O. and Medical Officer are to be examined. Petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2019 having no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner is husband of the deceased and the deceased died within seven years of her marriage at her sasural in other than normal circumstance. Considering the fact that petitioner is husband of the deceased and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T