Baiju Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57240 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2020 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Baiju Sahni, aged about 27 years, male, S/O Nanhaki Sahni, R/O VillagePhulbariya, P.S- Bibhutipur, Distt.- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 22-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Bibhutipur PS Case No.331 of 2020 dated 10.11.2020, instituted under Sections 304-B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other other co-accused killed the sister of the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and disappeared her dead body. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. From perusal of the FIR it would appear that after the death of the wife of the petitioner, the petitioner's side informed the parents of the deceased and there is general and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57240 of 2024(7) dt.22-11-2024 2/2 omnibus allegation against all the family members including the petitioner. The relationship between the petitioner and the deceased was very cordial and there was no possibility, at all, that the petitioner or his family members would kill the deceased for dowry.

5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Further submission is that due to non-fulfillment of demand of rupees fifteen lakhs for doing business, the petitioner and his family members have killed the deceased and disappeared the dead body. The deceased has died within one year of her marriage. The petitioner is the husband and whole responsibility of the deceased lies on his shoulder. The dead body has not been recovered.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

7. The application stands dismissed.

(Khatim Reza, J) J. Alam/- U T