Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31040/2017rejected

Prakash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-23Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31040 of 2017 (3) dt.23-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31040 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -114 Year- 2009 Thana -PAROO District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Prakash Kumar, S/o Prabhu Mahto, R/o Village- Gariba, P.S. Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar -3 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Paroo P.S. Case No. 114 of 2009, disclosing offences under Sections 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. There is general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner and no specific overt act is attributed to him. In fact, the deceased herself committed suicide and before the supervising authority of the case, the witnesses have also stated that the deceased herself committed suicide. Hence, the petitioner the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31040 of 2017 (3) dt.23-08-2017 privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner happens to be husband of the complainant is solely responsible for the death of the deceased. The witnesses have also supported the prosecution version, which is evident from the paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T