← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17077/2016rejected

Ajit Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

2016-05-04Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17077 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -541 Year- 2015 Thana -RUNISAIDPUR District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Ajit Mehta Son of Shri Satya Narayan Mehta resident of Runni Saidpur Ward No. 6, P.S. Runni Saidpur, Distt. - Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 04-05-2016 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner, the informant as well the APP for the State.

The husband of the deceased is facing accusations punishable under Section 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code vide Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 541 of 2015. The father lodged the case alleging that marriage of the victim was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2009. After the second marriage when the victim came to the Sasural, demand of money was made to enable the husband to do business. On nonfulfilment, torture was meted out to her. Indisputably, the victim died in mysterious circumstances at the matrimonial home within 07 years of marriage.

Contention of the petitioner is that even in the F.I.R., it is stated that the husband was not at the home when the occurrence

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17077 of 2016 (2) dt.04-05-2016 2/2 has taken place. The victim was a short tempered lady and committed suicide.

Counsel for the informant as well as the State opposes the prayer and submitted that in course of investigation, several witnesses have supported the prosecution case of meeting out torture to the victim.

Considering the seriousness of the allegation and the facts emanating from the record including the impugned order, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Prayer is, accordingly, rejected.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U T