Vedprakash v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30213 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-412 Year-2019 Thana- KOTWALI District- Munger ====================================================== Vedprakash, aged about 30 years, Male, S/o Rajkishore Prasad, Resident of Village-Ambe Chowk, Konark Road, P.S.-Kasim Bazar, Distt.-Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 08-01-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 412 of 2019 (G.R. No.2536 of 2019) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prosecution case as pr the written report of the informant Anil Mistri is that his daughter has married with the petitioner according to Hindu rites and customs about 4-5 years ago and this marriage was inter-caste love marriage. After marriage, petitioner and his father used to demand dowry from his daughter and also used to threaten that if their demand will not fulfill, she would be killed. On 03.10.2019 at about 07:00 A.M., the father of the petitioner informed him on phone that on 02.102019 at 09:30 P.M., his daughter has eaten poison for which she is being treated at Sadar Hospital, Munger. On getting such information, when they came to Sadar Hospital, Munger, his daughter had died.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30213 of 2020(3) dt.08-01-2021 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is quite innocent, who has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in the present case. From perusal of the first information report after marriage two child were born with the happily conjugal life of his daughter and his son-in-law. Therefore, there is no question of demand of dowry. He further submits that when the informant has know about the innocence of accused and he lodged an F.I.R. only on the basis of suspicion then he filed compromise petition before the learned court below. He further submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased.

I have perused the record including the case diary. Considering this fact, the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for above named petitioner in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.412 of 2019 (G.R. No.2536 of 2019) pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Munger is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Nasimul/- U T