Raghunandan Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55051 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -345 Year- 2016 Thana -PATORI District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Raghunandan Pandit, Son of Late Ram Pukar Pandit, Resident of VillageLaguniya, P.S. Patori, District Samastipur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Samarjeet Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-12-2016 Heard Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Kumar Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Naresh Ray, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner, who is father-in-law of the deceased, has approached this Court for grant of bail in Patori P.S. Case No.345 of 2016 registered for the offence under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an old person, aged about 65 years and has falsely been implicated in this case keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is father of the husband of the deceased,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55051 of 2016 (2) dt.22-12-2016 2/2 whereas learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. He submits that in the F.I.R., there is allegation of torture against the petitioner for nonfulfilment of dowry and it is a case of forcefully administering poison and death has occurred due to the said reason. He submits that in number of paragraphs of the case diary, the prosecution witnesses have supported the allegation to show that the deceased was regularly tortured.

In view of the fact that there is allegation in the F.I.R. against the petitioner as well as the case is under Section 304B and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code, there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

It goes without saying that if within six weeks from today, the petitioner appears before the court below and makes a prayer for regular bail, the learned court below without being prejudiced with this order may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably on the same day.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T