Babloo Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33620 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2018 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== BABLOO SAHNI S/O Late Bulaki Sahni @ Nanhki Sahni Resident of Village- Baingra, P.S.- Pear, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pradhan Murli Manohar Prasad Mr. Raju Kumar Goswami For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 22-05-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Pear P.S. Case No.15 of 2018 registered under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The father of the deceased disclosed that he married his daughter on 24.11.2017 with Babloo Sahni(the petitioner). Immediately after marriage, her husband and other in-laws started demanding additional dowry. The informant alleged that on 18.01.2018, the petitioner and his family members burnt his daughter to death. The informant got information about the death of her daughter on 04.02.2018 and after inquiry lodged the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner took his wife for treatment and made his statement before the police that while his wife was cooking food, she

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33620 of 2019(2) dt.22-05-2019 2/2 accidentally got burn injury and died during the course of treatment. It is further submitted that F.I.R. was lodged after much delay. The information was given to the informant about the accident and death of his daughter but the informant did not lodge the case. The mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-inlaw of the deceased have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 09.08.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No.35155 of 2018. The case of the petitioner of course stands on the same footing.

Taking into consideration the submission and on perusal of records, it appears that petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Deceased was married with the petitioner on 24th November, 2017 and just within two months, the wife of the petitioner died of burn injury. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner informed his in-laws about the death of his wife.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

Saurabh/- (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) U T