Baunu Paswan And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17300 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2014 Thana -MEERGANJ District- PURNIA ======================================================

1. Baunu Paswan son of Late Baldeo Paswan

2. Birani Devi @ Pramila Devi wife of Baunu Paswan

3. Subodh Paswan son of Baunu Paswan, All resident of Khedlichak, Musahari, P.S.- Mirganj, District- Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Ranjan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Madhuri Lata(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-09-2015 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mirganj P.S.Case No.101 of 2014 for the offences instituted under Sections 364, 120B and 504/34 of the I.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that three years ago the informant got her daughter, Priyanka Kumari, married with Subodh Paswwan, On 2.2.2014 his Samadhi, namely, Bounu Paswan came to the informant and informed that Priyanka Kumari escaped from her matrimonial house. Then the informant and his wife searched but they could not find her. The informant along with his wife went to his Samadhi and asked about his daughter upon which the petitioners replied him that on account of nonfulfillment of dowry demand she fled away. The petitioners

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17300 of 2015 (4) dt.04-09-2015 2/2 abused and assaulted them.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Though the witnesses in paras 9 and 10 of the case diary have stated that the victim was not satisfied with her husband and hence she had left his house. The witnesses have seen the victim going alone and not in the company of these petitioners.

On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and till date the victim has not been recovered.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The same is rejected.

Anyhow the petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today and pray for regular bail which shall be considered without being prejudiced by this rejection order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) AnilKrSinha/- U T