Arjun Chaudhari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37250 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-452 Year-2019 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna ====================================================== ARJUN CHAUDHARI SON OF SUKHLU CHAUDHARI R/O VILLAGEATARPURA, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 452 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation, the daughter of the informant was married to Akash Chaudhari, the son of the petitioner, on 25.10.2019. The accused persons including the petitioner used to torture and assault the deceased Reena Kumari for non-fulfillment of dowry demand of rupees two lac cash and a motorcycle. On 01.11.2019, the informant received an information that the deceased, Reena Kumari, committed suicide by strangulating herself. When he went to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37250 of 2022(2) dt.20-07-2022 2/2 house of the petitioner, he came to know that the accused persons before the death of the deceased had inflicted torture upon her for non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is father-in-law of the deceased having no concern with the alleged occurrence and he never demanded dowry. There is specific allegation against the accused persons including the petitioner that they subjected the deceased to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The deceased died within a period of one week from her marriage in her matrimonial house which shows that the circumstances were other than normal and there is allegation that soon before marriage she was tortured by accused persons including the present petitioner. As such, I do not think it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T