Manohar Pasi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42234 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2022 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

MANOHAR PASI son of Nathuni Chaudhari Village- Amiawar PsNasriganj Dist- Rohtas 2.

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Choudhary son of Manohar Pasi Village- Amiawar Ps- Nasriganj Dist- Rohtas 3.

Priyanka Devi wife of Sonu Kumar, D/o- Manohar Pasi Village- Amiawar Ps- Nasriganj Dist- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Siddharth Harsh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 10-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Nasriganj P.S. Case No.118 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, the petitioners are said to have killed the younger sister of informant on the pretext of non-fulfillment of demand for dowry.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42234 of 2023(4) dt.10-10-2023 2/2 occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners are the in-laws of the deceased. He further submits that the husband of the deceased namely, Ramanand Pasi and the deceased were living separate from the petitioners and such separation was done at the instance of the deceased and her husband soon after their marriage. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent, which is also mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that there is ample evidence against the petitioners in the case diary.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as there is evidence against the petitioners in the case diary, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of bail on their behalf is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T