Guddu Soni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30112 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -130 Year- 2015 Thana -KARAHGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Guddu Soni S/o Siyaram Seth @ Siyaram Soni R/o village Seema, P.S. Pauthu, District- Aurangabad.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-11-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kargahar P.S. Case No. 130 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is husband of the deceased Sushum Kumari who was married to the petitioner in the month of May, 2010. The informant alleged that the petitioner and others were demanding additional dowry and they killed Sushum Kumari due to non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry and cremated her dead body.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is compromised. The occurrence took place in the district of Aurangabad but the case has been filed within the jurisdiction of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30112 of 2016 (5) dt.08-11-2016 2/2 Rohtas at Sasaram. It is further submitted that the deceased died due to tuberculosis, but from perusal of the FIR and the case diary, it appears that the deceased died due to burn injuries and not on account of tuberculosis. The deceased died on 13.11.2013, but the FIR was lodged on 20.04.2015. It appears that the informant has very categorically stated that when he came from Haryana he knew that Sushum Kumari was burnt to death due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. The petitioner is husband. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T