Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47175/2019rejected

Chhotelal Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2019-12-04Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47175 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2018 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== CHHOTELAL RAM, Son of Dharmu Ram, Resident of Village - Mednipur, P.S.- Sasaram (Mufasil), Distt - Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 04-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Petitioner is the husband. Marriage has been solemnized about six years prior to the occurrence. There happens to be an allegation that 3-4 years after marriage the spouse led their marital life happily but, subsequently thereof, the petitioner began to demand a motorcycle and for that, deceased was being frequently tortured and in the aforesaid background, for the last one month she was residing at her place (Mayaka). On 26.09.2018 the petitioner called her on the pretext of withdrawal of money for construction of toilet. After arrival the deceased had informed at about 7.00 PM that again she is being physically manhandled. On 27.11.2018 he got an information regarding death of the deceased at the end of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47175 of 2019(4) dt.04-12-2019 2/2 Dharmu Ram, father of the petitioner. Whereupon, he came there. He has seen the mark over her neck and, her legs were tied with a blouse.

From the Postmortem report, paragraph 30 of the case diary it is evident that though the injury over neck has been found but that happens to be not the cause of death and so viscera has been preserved and with regard thereto, there happens to be no explanation at the end of the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) skpathak/- U T