Ranjeet Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29877 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -250 Year- 2015 Thana -JANDAHA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Ranjeet Jha Son of late Ashok Jha Resident of Village- Resident of VillageRampur, Barbatta, P.S. Jandaha, District Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-09-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Jandaha P.S. Case No. 250/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The father of the deceased alleged that his daughter was married to the petitioner about eleven years ago. The husband of daughter was having illicit relation with his own sister-in-law (bhabhi) and the deceased new this fact. When the deceased protested the petitioner and others assaulted her and killed and thereafter her dead-body was disposed of.

Ms. Soni Shrivastava learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner got accidental burn injuries inside the house. She was taken to Dr. Bindu Jha for treatment. The doctor advised the petitioner to take his wife to somewhere

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29877 of 2016 (3) dt.30-09-2016 2/2 else for better treatment, but the petitioner did not take his wife for better treatment and brought his wife in his own house. Thereafter, his wife died. In para 9 of the case diary the witness has stated that while the daughter of the informant was cooking food she got accidental fire. Father and other family members were informed; the father of the victim came and got her treated in the hospital of Dr. Bindu Jha. After death of the victim again information was given, but the father did not come and asked for photographs of the cremation. The petitioner is the husband. The witnesses have stated that the petitioner assaulted his wife and burnt her. Even the doctor advised the petitioner to take his wife for specialized treatment after seeing the burn injuries found on the body of the wife of the petitioner, but petitioner instead of affording treatment to wife, brought her to his own house and left her uncared to die and subsequently she died.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that there is specific allegation that his wife made protest about the illicit relation of the husband for which the petitioner and others forcibly assaulted and burnt her to death, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T