Raj Kumar Akela @ Raju Patel @ Raju Kumar Akela v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28616 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2020 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran ====================================================== RAJ KUMAR AKELA @ RAJU PATEL @ RAJU KUMAR AKELA, SON OF ANIL PATEL @ ANIL KUMAR AKELA, R/O- MOUNA MOHAN NAGAR, P.S.- CHAPRA TOWN, DISTRICT- SARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 16-01-2023 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P for the State is present.

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner herein. It is stated that the accused persons including the petitioner tortured and assaulted the daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry to the tune of Rs.2 lacs and a motorcycle. She was ultimately done to death.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on account of his being the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28616 of 2022(3) dt.16-01-2023 2/2 husband of the deceased. The allegation of the demand of dowry is all false and concocted. The petitioner is in custody since 28.3.2022 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. In fact the deceased had gone to her sister's house where as a result of exposure to cold she died of cardio respiratory arrest on 10.1.2020. No external injury has been found in the postmortem report.

Having heard learned A.P.P for the State and having perused the material on record, the Court finds that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, in the F.I.R and thus the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. (Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T