Amit Ranjan Singh @ Amit Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42569 of 2014 Arising out of P.S. Case No. -153 Year- 2014 Thana -PAROO District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Amit Ranjan Singh @ Amit Ranjan Kumar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bela Singh-Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat (A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 05-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Deceased, Minki Kumari, who was married with the petitioner on 01.06.2013, as has been alleged, was subjected to torture at her Sasural for procurement of dowry and in the aforesaid background, when two brothers of deceased have gone to her place, they were confined, however, at the intervention of villagers let off. Subsequently thereof, it has also been alleged that in the night of 10/11.06.2014, she was subjected to torture to such extent endangering her life and on account thereof, the villagers protested and directed to have proper medical treatment, which they provided and during course thereof, Minki Devi died. Petitioner is the husband. So, acknowledging his status, it has been submitted on his behalf that deceased sustained

injuries on account of suicidal attempt and the petitioner and his family members took every possible effort to save her life, took her to Prashant Nursing Home and from there while she was to carry to P.M.C.H., she died. Therefore, the allegation whatsoever been alleged happens to be palpably false as well as motivated. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

After going through the case diary, it is evident that there was love marriage in between the deceased and the petitioner on account of presence of deceased at the place of her elder sister, who also happens to be married in the same village where the petitioner has got a regular visit. It is also evident from the statement of the co-villager that aforesaid theme was not at all digested by the family members and in the aforesaid background, petitioner had whispered that he was kidnapped and then, marriage was solemnized forcibly. In the aforesaid background, when the statement of two brothers have been gone through recorded under Paragraph-15 of the case diary, it is evident that they have supported the earlier conduct which they perceived while visiting to the place of petitioner.

Now, coming to the main issues, none of the witnesses have stated that they have seen or they tried to lift the

deceased while she was hanging during course of commission of suicide. Contrary to it, the place of occurrence recorded by the Investigating Officer under Paragraph-7 had identified a different room than that of living room of deceased, which was shown to be the place of occurrence wherein, alleged suicidal exercise was made, did not find supported with objective finding. Moreover, the post mortem report also did not justify it a case of suicide. That being so, I do not see it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer of petitioner for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Vikash/- U T