Upendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36302 of 2017 (3) dt.08-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36302 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -57 Year- 2016 Thana -KORMA District- SEKHPURA ======================================================

1. Upendra Ram Son of Late Lorik Ram resident of village Paini, P.S. Sarmera, District Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Korma Police Station Case No. 57 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner and no specific overt act is attributed to him. In fact, the petitioner happens to be father-in-law of the deceased and he has never assaulted or demanded any dowry and also he lives separately from the deceased and her husband. The occurrence is of 10.07.2016 whereas the complaint was filed on 19.07.2016

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36302 of 2017 (3) dt.08-09-2017 without explaining the plausible delay. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry victim has been done to death by strangulating her neck and the dead body was set on fire in order to disappear the evidence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T