Dhrup Ram @ Dhruv Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 30684 of 2020 Arising Out of PS Case No.-4 Year-2020 Thana- RAXAUL RAIL P.S. District- West Champaran ====================================================== Dhrup Ram @ Dhruv Ram, aged about 50 years, Male, Son of Late Ram Sakal Ram, Resident of Village - Satpipra, Dubey Tola, P.S.- Ramgarhwa, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rashmi Jha, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 30-01-2021 Heard Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Rashmi Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalan Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Raxaul Rail PS Case No. 04 of 2020 dated 02.02.2020, instituted under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the deceased is accused of being party to her death which occurred due to hanging.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30684 of 2020 dt.30-01-2021 2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no connection with his son who is living separately and he is a sweeper in the Railways and in fact was not present in the house when the incident occurred.
5. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner cannot shirk responsibility as the house in which the death took place was the official quarter allotted to the petitioner by the Railways and, thus, the plea of being separate with the son is totally falsified. Learned counsel submitted that the death occurred due to hanging in the residence which was allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner being the head of the family, clearly he cannot take a stand that he does not have any responsibility towards the incident.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T