Ravindra Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13028 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -8 Year- 2015 Thana -KAKO District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Ravindra Gupta, S/o Arjun Prasad, Resident of Village-Kako, P.S. Kako, District-Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Asharaf Ansari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-04-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, informant and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kako P.S. Case No. 08 of 2015 for the offences registered under Sections 304(B)/34 of the IPC.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the informant's sister, Pinki Devi, was solemnized with co-accused Sanjay Prasad and while she was at her matrimonial home, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons are said to have sprinkled Kerosene Oil over her body and put her on fire and as a result thereof, she became seriously injured and was admitted at P.M.C.H. Patna, where she succumbed to injuries after giving her statement before the police. It is further alleged that prior to the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13028 of 2017 (3) dt.20-04-2017 2/2 present incident, the accused persons used to torture her and also used to assault and ultimately her life was ended on 17.01.2015. The earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide Cr. Misc. No. 26565 of 2015 dated 23.09.2015 taking into account that the deceased in her dying declaration has named the accused persons who had poured kerosene oil upon her and had lit fire as a result of which, she died. The said application of the petitioner was rejected on 23.09.2015 with a direction to surrender within a period of six weeks and after a lapse of more than 11⁄2 years, again anticipatory bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. There is no fresh ground for consideration of the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in Kako P.S. Case No. 08 of 2015, pending in the court of the learned C.J.M. Jehanabad.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T