Dharm Mukhia v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4783 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2018 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria ====================================================== DHARM MUKHIA S/o Bisheshwar Mukhiya Resident of Village-Ratnaha, P.S-Alauli, District-Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 04-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant case for depositing the requisite court fee and to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Alauli P.S. Case No. 279 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This is a case of dowry death due to non-fulfilment of the demand.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4783 of 2021(3) dt.04-01-2022 2/2 The father of the victim had lodged this case alleging therein that his daughter Pinki Devi was married with the petitioner but after four years of marriage, the accused persons started subjecting to her cruelty for demand of dowry and told her issue-less because she had no child. On 19.08.2018, the informant went to the house of the victim and started searching her but the villagers told him that she has been killed and the dead body has been disposed of secretly.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) brajesh kumar/- U T