Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28132/2020dismissed

Jai Mangal Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2021-01-27Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28132 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2019 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Jai Mangal Rai, aged about 54 years, son of Jamadar Rai, 2.

Navin Kumar, aged about 26 years, son of Jai Mangal Rai, Both resident of Village- Barmatpur, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-01-2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Sadar PS Case No.350 of 2019 dated 28.05.2019 instituted under Sections 201, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners and two others is of killing the daughter of the informant and burning her body to hide the evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28132 of 2020 dt.27-01-2021 2/2 petitioner no.1 is the father and petitioner no. 2 brother, of the husband of the deceased. It was submitted that the petitioners are living separately after partition and they had no concern with the affairs of the deceased and her husband.

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners being the father and brother of the husband of the deceased, cannot be absolved of their responsibility as death has taken in the matrimonial home within five years of marriage and the body being burnt without even informing the relatives of the deceased or police clearly indicates that there was foul play.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) J. Alam/- AFR/NAFR U T