Md. Akhtar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23418 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -64 Year- 2015 Thana -SAHEBGANJ District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Md. Akhtar, Son of Late Md. Salim, Resident of Village-Tarawa, P.S. Sahebganj

2. Md. Sabdul, Son of Md. Shaheed

3. Jaibul Khatoon, Wife of Md. Sabdul Both Resident of Village-Peni Chhapra, P.S. Kanti, District-Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-09-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 64 of 2015, registered under Sections 307 and 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the S.D.J.M., West Muzaffarpur.

The accusation is that the marriage of the informant Rukhsana Khatoon was performed with Md. Afsar in the year 2014 and she went at her matrimonial house and after staying there for some time, she returned back to her Myaka. Thereafter, she again went to her matrimonial house then her husband used to demand motorcycle then she informed the matter to her father.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23418 of 2017 (4) dt.05-09-2017 2/2 The father of the informant come to her matrimonial house and tried to convince her husband, but her husband started to keep pressure and also tortur her. On 12.03.2015, the petitioners along with Saida Khatoon and Md. Afsar sprinkled kerosene oil at her person and put her on fire in which she sustained injury. On raising alarm, she was rushed to Sahebganj Hospital from where she was referred to S.K.M.C.H. Later on, the informant died succumbed to her injuries.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are brother-in-law, Mausa and Mausi of the husband of the deceased and they have falsely been implicated in this case. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T