Devdutt Richhariya @ Devdutt Richariya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48577 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2024 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas ====================================================== Devdutt Richhariya @ Devdutt Richariya Son of Ramesh Chandra Richariya Resident of Vill- Pawa, P.S.- Srinager, District- Mohoba (U.P.) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sadanand Roy For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 14-08-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Dehri Town Police Station Case No. 232 of 2024, dated 20.03.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Informant Report the marriage of the informant's daughter was solemnized with the petitioner on 02.12.2022 and on 15.03.2024, the informant received the information that his daughter has been killed by the petitioner and others due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry of one car. At the time of death of the daughter of the informant, the petitioner and the deceased were residing in a rented house at Dehri-on-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48577 of 2024(2) dt.14-08-2024 2/3 sone.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. He further submits that the petitioner and deceased were residing in a rented premises at Dehri-on-sone and on the date of occurrence, he was not present in his house. He further submits that the deceased died on 15.03.2024 and the information regarding the death of the deceased was given to the informant and in his presence, the cremation was done on 17.03.2024 at the matrimonial home of the deceased at Uttar Pradesh and at that time, the informant did not raise any dispute.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that within fifteen months of the marriage, the deceased was killed by her in-laws and the petitioner for demand of dowry.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record including the impugned order.

7. Within fifteen months of the marriage, the informant's

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48577 of 2024(2) dt.14-08-2024 3/3 daughter died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The nature of death is not important whether it is natural, suicidal or accidental but the fact of the matter is that deceased died an unnatural death within fifteen months of her marriage. There is a presumption against the accused persons under Section 113(A) and 113(B) of the Evidence Act. The offence is serious in nature and the punishment thereof is also serious.

8. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √