Vikky Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51513 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2019 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== VIKKY KUMAR SAH Son of Late Anandi Sah Resident of Mohalla - Main Bazar, Ward No.6, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
Pramod Sah Son of Late Rajendra Sah Resident of Village - Paririya Mohanpur, P.S.- Ujiyarpur, District- Samastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Dr. Indiwar Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2019 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Dalsinghsarai P.S. case No. 70 of 2019 registered under Section 304B/34 of the IPC.
The father of the deceased alleged that he had talked with his daughter and his daughter disclosed on 23.03.2019 that she was brutally assaulted and her husband and others were threatening to kill. After sometime he got information that his daughter was done to death.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 23.03.2019 and the informant was in Delhi but in the next day he came to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51513 of 2019(2) dt.19-08-2019 2/2 village and lodged the case. It is further submitted that victim was of weak mind and she herself committed suicide but it appears that the informant alleged that petitioner and others were demanding dowry and petitioner, who is husband of the decreased, and other family members were subjecting her to all sorts of torture. The deceased was died due to asphyxia within two years of her marriage in her Sasural. The petitioner is husband of the deceased.
Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same was rejected.
After dictating the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to call for the case diary.
There is no need of calling for the case diary. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T