Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25032/2019rejected

Mahabali Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-30Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25032 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2018 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== MAHABALI KUMAR Son Sri Lal Chand Ram, Resident of Village- songar, P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Chand P.S. Case No.213 of 2018 registered under Sections 306 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that the petitioner took his daughter to his own house and tortured her. The informant came to know that the petitioner was having love affairs with the daughter of the informant. On 06.10.2018 the victim came to the house of the informant but her condition was very precarious and she died of poisoning.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner and the deceased were having love affairs and the informant objected. The daughter of the informant consumed poison and died. It is further submitted that during course of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25032 of 2019(5) dt.30-09-2019 2/2 investigation, the neighbour of the petitioner disclosed that the daughter of the informant consumed poison in her house but it appears from the statement of the informant and other witnesses that the petitioner and the daughter of the informant fled away from the house and when they returned, both of them consumed poison. The petitioner survived but the daughter of the informant died of poisoning.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U R