Md. Ayyub @ Ayyub v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4657 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -129 Year- 2014 Thana -ISHAKCHAK District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Md. Ayyub @ Ayyub Son of Md. Qasim Resident of Mohalla - Barahpura, Qudratullah Lane, Police Station - Ishakchak, District - Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Masleh-Uddin Ashraf For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arvind Kr.Pandey(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 27-05-2015 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is the husband of the victim with whom he was married only a year ago.

The allegation is that soon after the marriage, the daughter of the informant was tortured at the matrimonial house for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. She took shelter in her parents' house. Petitioner visited the house of his wife and there also demand was made. On the relevant date, he was present in the house at Sasural when the victim was done to death. He was found absent therefrom.

Contention of the petitioner is that the allegations

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4657 of 2015 (3) dt.27-05-2015 2/2 levelled against him are quite unnatural. The deceased had love affairs with another boy and out of frustration, she committed suicide at her naihar. It is submitted that a kind of compromise has been entered between the parties.

Learned APP opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and contended that there is clear allegation of demand of dowry and on account of non-fulfilment thereof, torture meted out to the deceased in diverse manner.

Be that as it may, considering the seriousness of allegation, I do not find it a fit case to privilege the petitioner with anticipatory bail. Prayer is rejected. Let the petitioner surrender and seek regular bail. In that case, the same shall be considered on its own merit uninfluenced by the present order. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U T