Dablu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30864 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2019 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
DABLU KUMAR SON OF LATE SURENDER SINGH R/ORASHULPUR, P.S.-FATHUA, DISTT.-PATNA 2.
PRAMILA DEVI WIFE OF LATE SURENDER SINGH R/ORASHULPUR, P.S.-FATHUA, DISTT.-PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv Mr. Prem Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-10-2023 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Gaurichak P.S. Case No.471 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with other co-accused persons killed the daughter of the informant on the pretext of non-fulfillment of demand for dowry.
4. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30864 of 2023(5) dt.03-10-2023 2/2 taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law and petitioner no.2 is the mother-inlaw of the deceased, respectively. He further submits that other co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that the petitioners have no concern with the day to day life of the deceased or her husband. The petitioners were living separately from the co-accused i.e. the husband of the deceased namely, Rahul Kumar. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that the petitioners are also involved in the present case.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected.
7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T