Awtar Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31777 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2018 Thana- EKMA District- Saran ====================================================== AWTAR BHARTI Son of Gopal Bharti Resident of Village- Lalpur Mathia, P.S.- Ekma, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravindra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukeshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant is the father of deceased who has stated in his written complaint that he married his daughter with the petitioner on 18.02.2018, and after marriage demand of motorcycle was made and on account of non fulfillment of which she was subjected to torture. It has been further alleged that on 02.04.2018, he got information that his daughter has been killed by her in-laws and when he came to the matrimonial home of his daughter, he found her lying dead. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations of demand of dowry is false and concocted. At

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31777 of 2019(4) dt.17-08-2019 2/2 the time of occurrence he was not present and was performing his duty in Hindustan Zinc Limited at Rajasthan. According to post mortem report cause of death could not be ascertained, as such the allegation that she was killed by throttling cannot be true. It has been further submitted that she committed suicide by consuming poison. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Considering the fact that petitioner is the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, it is observed that petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing one year of jail custody.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- U