Raju Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2512 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -99 Year- 2014 Thana -JOGAPATTI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Raju Ram Son of Akri Ram resident of village - Barwa Ojha, P.S. Yogapatti ( Shanichari ), District - West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.K. Khare(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-04-2015 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Yogapatti P.S.Case No. 99 of 2014 instituted under Sections 304B, 201 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., West Champaran at Bettiah. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State. And the informant.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant, Mohan Ram, has alleged in his written petition that he had performed marriage of his daughter Sabita Devi with the petitioner. On 22.5.2014 someone informed him on telephone that the accused persons have killed his daughter and they are taking away dead body for its burn. The informant reached there and found that the accused persons had been burning his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2512 of 2015 (3) dt.30-04-2015 2/2 daughter in the canal towards western side of the village. When the informant made protest all the accused persons committed marpit with the informant. The informant has also alleged that accused persons used to assault his daughter prior to this occurrence.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in present case. There is no demand of dowry.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders in the court below within a period of six weeks and pray for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Sudhir Singh, J) singh/- U T