Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49718/2014dismissed

Subash Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2015-04-23Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49718 of 2014 (2) dt.23-04-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49718 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -216 Year- 2013 Thana -FATUHA District- PATNA ====================================================== Subash Paswan s/o Suresh Paswan, resident of village Nathupur, P.S. Fatuha, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : M/s. Rajendra Kishore Prasad. Rekha Prasad and Rohit Kishore Prasad For the State : Mr. Sharda Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-04-2015 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Fathua P.S.Case No. 216 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Patnacity, DistrictPatna. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The prosecution story, in brief, is that informant's daughter Jaymanti was married with Subash Paswan (petitioner) about three years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals. The informant's daughter gave a birth to a female child. For last one year in-laws members were demanding Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. On his refusal they started to torture his daughter. Her daughter used to give information about her torture. On 13.06.2013 one person of the village informed that his daughter was done to death by the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49718 of 2014 (2) dt.23-04-2015 accused persons and concealed her dead body. On this information the informant along with other persons came to the house of her daughter and they found that the information was correct. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of he petitioner. 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