Jay Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12699 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -135 Year- 2016 Thana -KUMARGHAND District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Jay Kumar Ram, Son of Late Chhutahru Ram, resident of village - Garhiya, P.S. Kumar - Khand, District - Madhepura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ------------- 24-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kumar Khand P.S. Case No.135 of 2016 registered under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura.

The accusation is that the remarriage of the petitioner was performed with Sanful Devi, the daughter of the informant Shyam Sunder Ram, but after remarriage, the petitioner stared making demand of one cow and motorcycle in dowry from her and due to non fulfillment of the same, the daughter of the informant was being tortured by the petitioner, his son and other family members

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12699 of 2017 (4) dt.24-07-2017 2/2 and, ultimately, after committing the murder of the daughter and Natini of the informant, they concealed their dead bodies. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while the remarriage of the petitioner was performed with the daughter of the informant, who was also married with one Mithilesh Ram, but the daughter of the informant had never come at the house of the petitioner and the present case has been lodged with false allegation.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T