Anil Kumar @ Anil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3532 of 2015 (3) dt.19-05-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3532 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -20 Year- 2013 Thana -BENA District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Anil Kumar @ Anil Yadav Son of Binda Prasad Resident of Village - Rannu Bigha, Police Station - Ben in the district of Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Indra Kumar Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 19-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ben P.S. Case No. 20 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The daughter of the informant was married with the petitioner in the year 2010 and after marriage she gave birth to a male child but due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry she was being assaulted and tortured and food was also stopped and expenses of milk of her child was also not provided and on 10.2.2013 the informant got information that the accused persons have killed his daughter by administering poison. Submission is of false implication and that against the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3532 of 2015 (3) dt.19-05-2015 petitioner there is no specific allegation. Other accused persons have been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court. The doctor Om Prakash in paragraph 37 of the case diary has stated that the informant and the mother-in-law have come before him for treatment but considering the condition serious, he advised them to take her Biharsharif and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes by submitting that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case regarding complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence and the supervising authority has also found the case to be true under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

Considering that the petitioner is the husband and the allegation attributed against him is serious in nature, this Court is not persuaded to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T