Sonu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42187 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2018 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran ====================================================== SONU RAM Son of Nand Kishor Ram Resident of Village - Basahiya, P.S.- Dhaka (Panchpakri), District - East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anshu Dhar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is the husband of the deceased with whom the marriage was performed on 28.04.2017. He is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Dhaka (Panchpakri O.P.) P.S. Case No. 139 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner is the husband of the deceased but fact remains that on the date of alleged occurrence he was not present at the house and had gone outside. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are not true and at last two named accused namely, mother and uncle of the petitioner have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by a learned coordinate Bench of this Court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42187 of 2019(2) dt.02-09-2019 2/2 Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner as according to him, sufficient materials have come in the case diary in various paragraphs where the witnesses have made statement involving this petitioner. Further it is submitted that even the dead body of the deceased was concealed and all these things have taken place inside the matrimonial house.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case where the petitioner is the husband, named in the FIR and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that in course of investigation the Police has collected sufficient material against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant him privilege of anticipatory bail. The prayer is refused.

The application is dismised.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/- U T