Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36554/2016rejected

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Kumar Ram @ Pintu Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-17Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36554 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -238 Year- 2015 Thana -PAROO District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Kumar Ram @ Pintu Kumar, S/o Barhamdev Ram

2. Brahamdev Ram, Son of Late Dovi Ram

3. Veena Devi, Wife of Brahamdev Ram All are residing in VillageKamalpura, Mathiya tola, P.S. Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Mahtab Ahmad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Murlidhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 238 of 2015 registered under Sections 304(B) of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of C.J.M., Muzaffarpur. The allegation of informant Shyam Deo Ram is that on 01.10.2015, at about 8:00 am, he received information that his daughter, whose marriage was performed with the son of Brahamdev Ram in village Kamalpura, has been killed by in-laws by hanging. Thereafter, he reached there and saw that her daughter Priyanka Kumari was hanging on the ceiling fan, thereupon with the help of villagers and in presence of Mukhiya the lock was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36554 of 2016 (2) dt.17-09-2016 2/2 opened and the dead body of his daughter was laid on the floor. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners, who happened to be husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, have falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner no.1, Arvind Kumar, husband of the deceased, was not present rather he was at Kolkata in connection with his job on the date of occurrence and he was not present in his village.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Shail/- U T