Ranjeet Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28895 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-408 Year-2019 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

RANJEET PASWAN Son of Luxuman Paswan Resident of Village - Bhagwanpur Ratti, P.S.- Vaishali, District - Vaishali. 2.

Ranju Devi Wife of Ranjeet Paswan Resident of Village - Bhagwanpur Ratti, P.S.- Vaishali, District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-01-2021 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 408 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The allegation as per the First Information Report is that the daughter of the informant namely, Puja Devi was married to the son of the petitioners in the year 2018 and after marriage, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons started demanding Rs. 50,000/- as dowry and due to non-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28895 of 2020(3) dt.27-01-2021 2/3 fulfillment of the said demand, the victim was subjected to torture and cruelty and ultimately, on 08.11.2019, the informant received message on Mobile phone that his daughter Puja Devi has been killed by the petitioners and others and her dead body was concealed by them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case merely on the fact that petitioners are parents-in-law of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that allegation against the petitioners is general and omnibus in nature and the husband of the deceased is in custody since 28.06.2020.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State referring to the case diary submits that within 7 years of marriage, the deceased has died in her matrimonial home in suspicious condition and there is allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the petitioners also. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused persons concealed the dead body of the deceased which was found in a different place on 25.12.2019 and there is presumption against the petitioners under Section 113B of the Evidence Act and the petitioners have not given reasonable justification for the death of the deceased. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28895 of 2020(3) dt.27-01-2021 3/3 and taking into consideration the materials on record and the fact that the petitioners are named in the First Information Report , I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners stands rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U T