Shrwan Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39566 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2021 Thana- KURSAKANTA District- Araria ====================================================== SHRWAN KUMAR MANDAL Son of Late Gauri Mandal Resident of village - Ghat Chikni, P.S. - Kursakanta, Dist.- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sucheta Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 10-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office be removed within four weeks.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 115 of 2021 under Sections 341, 323, 307, 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and later Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Coded has been added.

As per the FIR, the informant has alleged that he solemnized the marriage of his sister, Madhu Devi with the petitioner, Shrwan Kuma Mandal four years ago. However, she was regularly tortured by her in-laws for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. Five lakhs. It is further alleged that he

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39566 of 2022(2) dt.10-10-2022 2/2 got information that her sister was set ablaze by the accused persons including the petitioner herein for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged and the petitioner was taken into custody.

The petitioner is the husband and the FIR vide Kursakanta P.S. Case No. 115 of 2021 was lodged on 17.06.2021 but he chose to walk into judicial custody only on 18.05.2022. Being her husband, the petitioner cannot exonerate himself from the alleged death of his wife.

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court for the present is not inclined to grant him privilege of bail for the present which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/NehaU T