Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1281/2018rejected

Bhola Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2018-01-24Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1281 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -34 Year- 2016 Thana -NAWADA MUFFASIL District- NAWADA ======================================================

1. Bhola Singh, Son of Late Shiwan Singh,

2. Sumitra Devi, Wife of Bhola Singh, Both are resident of Village- Neya, Police Station- Muffasil, in the District of Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Iftekhar Mahmood ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-01-2018 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Muffasil (Nawada) P.S. Case No.34 of 2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 498A/34 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Section 304B of IPC was added after the death of the deceased.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 11.5.2017. Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Bharat Singh, the husband of the deceased have already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 8.12.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No.47086 of 2016.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1281 of 2018 (2) dt.24-01-2018 2/2 From perusal of record, I find that during the course of investigation, most of the witnesses have stated that the petitioners and their son, the husband of the deceased, subjected the deceased to all sorts of torture and burnt her to death. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the victim during the course of investigation but the statement was not recorded before any of the witnesses of the family of the deceased.

Considering the fact that anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 11.05.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No.9037 of 2017, I do not find any new ground to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Sanjeev/- U T