Prabhat Ranjan @ Mantu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.29465 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -305 Year- 2015 Thana -DHAMDAHA District- PURNIA ======================================================
1. Prabhat Ranjan @ Mantu Son of Manoj Yadav, resident of VillageBishanpur, Police Station- Dhamdaha, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Bachan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 06-09-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner is husband of the victim and is facing prosecution under Section 304B/34 of the IPC vide Dhamdaha P.S. case no. 305 of 2015.
The father of the victim lodged the case that in the year 2013 the marriage of the her daughter was solemnized with the petitioner. From the date of marriage, demand for motorcycle was made by the petitioner and other family members. On account of non fulfillment thereof, the victim was being tortured. Only recently, the victim had disclosed this fact to the informant. On the date of occurrence, it was informed that the victim was in serious condition and being carried to the Purnia. However, when he reached the 'sasural', he found the dead body of the victim
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29465 of 2016 (3) dt.06-09-2016 2/2 lying in the courtyard.
It is submitted that the deceased was carrying pregnancy and in course whereof she died at the hospital inasmuch as post mortem was also carried out. The allegation that she was done to death is not supported by the post mortem report. The other accused persons have been granted the anticipatory bail.
Learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that not only the petitioner is the husband of the victim and named in the FIR but in course of the investigation also the witnesses have supported the allegation levelled in the FIR. Considering the severity of the allegation and the other materials reflecting from the record including the impugned order, in my view, the petitioner does not deserve the anticipatory bail.
Prayer is, accordingly, rejected.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U T