Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52087/2024dismissed

Gokhalesh Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-09Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52087 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-780 Year-2023 Thana- BEGUSARAI TOWN District- Begusarai ====================================================== 1.

Gokhalesh Mishra Son Of Late Shri Nath Mishra Village- Sonedipi, PsBaliya, Dist- Begusarai 2.

Sunita Devi Wife Of Gokhalesh Mishra Village- Sonedipi, Ps- Baliya, DistBegusarai 3.

Bhalloo Mishra @ Chandan Kumar Son Of Gokhalesh Mishra VillageSonedipi, Ps- Baliya, Dist- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amit Kumar Jha For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar For the Informant :

Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 09-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 780 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons are said to have killed the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52087 of 2024(5) dt.09-12-2024 2/2 the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that there is no specific overt act against the petitioners. He further submits that petitioners are in-laws of the deceased and they are separate in metes and bounds from the deceased and her husband. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioners are also involved in the present case.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T