Nezam Ansari @ Nijamuddin v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45214 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2023 Thana- KURTHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.
Nezam Ansari @ Nijamuddin S/o Barafati Husain @ Late Barafati RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANGAPUR, PS KURTHA, DISTRICT ARWAL 2.
Jareena Khatoon W/o Nezam Ansari @ Nijamuddin RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANGAPUR, PS KURTHA, DISTRICT ARWAL ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ramakant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2024
1. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Kurtha Police Station Case No. 139 of 2023, dated 09.05.2023, disclosing offences under Sections 304B/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the informant solemnized the marriage of his daughter, namely Khushnashiba Khatun, with co-accused Arshad Alam in the year 2018. After marriage the petitioners, alongwith other accused persons, started demanding a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the daughter of the informant has been strangulated to death on 07.05.2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45214 of 2024(2) dt.24-07-2024 2/3
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law and the petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and they have falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that both the husband and wife are of feeble mind, which the informant had already known and inspite of that, for the sake of his daughter's life, the marriage was solemnized. He further submits that on 07.05.2023, some altercation took place and due to anger and frustration the deceased has committed suicide and the allegation that the petitioners, alongwith others, have killed the deceased is false.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
5. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that within seven years of marriage the deceased has died in her matrimonial home. The nature of the death is not important whether it is homicidal, suicidal or accidental, but the fact is that deceased has died an unnatural death within 07 years of her marriage. There is presumption against the accused persons under Section 113-A and 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45214 of 2024(2) dt.24-07-2024 3/3 there is allegation against them that they, alongwith others, have demanded dowry from the deceased, I am not inclined to grant the petitioners the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ashwani/- U T