Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40191/2016dismissed

Sitaram Saw @ Pappu Saw v. The State Of Bihar

2016-11-08Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40191 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -269 Year- 2016 Thana -LAKHISARAI District- LAKHISARAI ====================================================== Sitaram Saw @ Pappu Saw Son of Sri Bishwanath Saw, Resident of Mohalla- Durgi Maharaj Gali, Lakhisarai, P.S. + District:- Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ambika Bhagat For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Asha Devi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-11-2016 Heard Sri Ambika Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, husband of the deceased, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 269 of 2016 registered for offence under Sections 406, 498(A) and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per complaint itself, death of daughter of informant had occurred on 19/20 of September, 2010, whereas, complaint was filed on 24-09-2010 without any explanation for delay and after two months, the case was referred to police for registration of F.I.R. and finally, F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2016. He further submits that death of daughter of informant had occurred since she

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40191 of 2016 (3) dt.08-11-2016 2/2 fell down.

Besides hearing, I have also perused the material on record, which indicates that even though death of daughter of informant, as per petitioner, was accidental, there is no postmortem examination report. If it was a case of unnatural death, in normal course, it was the duty of the husband to inform the police. Keeping in view the fact that death had occurred within seven years of marriage and petitioner being husband, there is no reason to grant anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T