Hareram @ Hareram Pandey @ Naresh Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52733 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-443 Year-2023 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== Hareram @ Hareram Pandey @ Naresh Pandey Son of Laxmi Pandey Resident of Village - Sono, P.S.- Sono, District - Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 21-09-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner being husband of the victim is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 443 of 2023, lodged on 08.12.2023, under Sections 498(A), 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamui.

3. As per the prosecution, the F.I.R. has been lodged against four named accused persons including the present petitioner alleging therein that all the accused persons in connivance with each other have killed the daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52733 of 2024(3) dt.21-09-2024 2/2 submits that the acquisition is omnibus and general against the petitioner. In fact the victim has committed suicide as rope mark was found on and around the neck of the deceased. But the present case has been filed only with a view to put pressure on the petitioner to fulfill the illegal demand of the informant.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the crux of the allegation is against the petitioner being husband of the victim.

6. In the present fact and circumstance, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ankit Kumar/- U T