Sanish Kumar @ Sanish Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2924 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2019 Thana- DIDARGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Sanish Kumar @ Sanish Kumar Yadav son of Uma Shankar Prasad @ Uma Shankar Singh resident of Village- Mahamadpur, P.S. Didarganj, Patna City, District -Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shankar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-03-2021 Heard both parties.

The petitioner seeks bail in Didarganj P.S. Case No. 218 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Section 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, daughter of the informant Soni Kumari was married with this petitioner in the year 2014 and just after the marriage, this petitioner along with family members used to torture mentally and physically the daughter of informant for dowry. Ultimately, on 15.07.2019 at about 7.00 pm, the informant got information on mobile that his daughter has been killed by the accused persons including this petitioner due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On such information, informant along with others went at the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2924 of 2021(3) dt.18-03-2021 2/2 matrimonial house of Soni Kumari and saw her dead body having ligature mark around her neck.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is husband of the deceased and at no point of time demand of dowry was made. There is general and omnibus allegation. There is absolutely no direct or circumstantial evidence against to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Petitioner is in custody since 22.07.2019 having no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner is husband of the deceased and there is specific allegation of torturing the deceased in connection with demand of dowry and the deceased died at her sasural within seven years of her marriage in unnatural circumstances.

Considering the facts aforesaid, nature and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T