Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48664/2017rejected

Chhotan Singh @ Sidyanath Kumar Singh @ Sidhyanath Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-14Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48664 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -159 Year- 2016 Thana -BHAGWANPUR DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== 1.

CHHOTAN SINGH @ SIDYANATH KUMAR SINGH @ SIDHYANATH KUMAR, Son of Ram Shankar Singh, Resident of VillageHarpur Kasturi, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP 30 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 14-11-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 159 of 2016 registered under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The father of the deceased alleged that his daughter was married to the petitioner on 18.04.2016 and his daughter went to her in-laws house, but, her husband, the petitioner, and other inlaws began to demand rupees one lakh and a motorcycle. The accused persons subjected his daughter to all sorts of torture. The informant, further, alleged that the informant filed Complaint Case No. 1174 of 2016 on 14.09.2016, but, only after few days, the accused persons killed his daughter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is husband of the deceased. The deceased got burn injury while she was cooking food. The petitioner is working in Gujrat and he was not even present at the time of occurrence, but, it appears from the first information report, itself, that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he being the husband of the deceased subjected his wife to

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48664 of 2017 (3) dt.14-11-2017 2/2 torture due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. The deceased died due to septicemia on account of burn injuries sustained by her in in-laws house within six months of her marriage with the petitioner.

Considering the facts, aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) SA/- U √ T √