Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36272 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2022 Thana- DORIGANJ District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
MUKESH KUMAR S/O SUNIL SAH Resident of Village- Chirand, P.S.- Doriganj, District- Saran.
2.
SUNIL SAH S/O RAM PRAVESH SAH @ KATH BIGAN SAH Resident of Village- Chirand, P.S.- Doriganj, District- Saran. 3.
ANSHU KUMAR @ ANSHU KUMAR S/O SUNIL SAH Resident of Village- Chirand, P.S.- Doriganj, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Surendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs.Sangeeta Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 304(B), 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, all the F.I.R. named accused including these petitioners killed the daughter of the informant by pressing her neck and thereafter, disposed her dead-body. Petitioner no. 1 is husband, petitioner no. 2 is fatherin-law and petitioner no. 3 brother-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that petitioners have committed no offence and the present case is false and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36272 of 2022(2) dt.22-09-2022 2/2 concocted. As a matter of fact, daughter of the informant fled away in the night without any information and no such occurrence, as alleged in F.I.R., took place, but only with a view to extract money, the informant has lodged this false case. However, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that there is specific and direct allegation against these petitioners of committing murder of the daughter of the informant for dowry. From perusal of paragraph 12 to 15 of the case diary, it appears that several witnesses have supported the prosecution case as well as in paragraph 17 of the case diary, it is mentioned that the dead body of the deceased was found in a river on 04.03.2022, which was identified by the informant and his family members.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and same is, accordingly, rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T