Chandeshwar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50488 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2019 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

CHANDESHWAR SINGH S/o Late Jagarnath Singh R/o village- Penar, P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas 2.

Rajamati Devi @ Rajwati Devi W/o Chandeshwar Singh R/o village- Penar, P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajani Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Nokha Police Station No.84 of 2019 registered under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Sri Punit Malviya, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, District-Rohtas.

The accusation is that the informant Arjun Singh had performed the marriage of his daughter, namely, Punita, with Ritesh Kumar, the son of the petitioners, on 13.03.2019. On 06.05.2019, the informant went at the sasural village of his daughter for her Bidai but when he reached near the sasural

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50488 of 2019(2) dt.14-08-2019 2/3 village of his daughter and made call on phone, then the petitioner no.1, father-in-law of his daughter, asked the informant to sit at Mehta Hotel. The informant waited for sometime and, thereafter, he made call on phone to the husband of his daughter, who asked the informant that his daughter is ill and she has been admitted at Chitranjan Hospital, Sasaram. When the informant went there, then he did not find them there. When the informant again made call on phone, they asked the informant that they are at Jamuhar Hospital. When the informant went there, no one was present there. When the informant made again call on phone, then they informed the informant that they have returned to the house. When the informant went at the sasural house of his daughter, then he found his daughter lying dead. Before two months, the husband and other in-laws of his daughter had made demand of Rs.2,00,000/- in dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are parents-in-law of the daughter of the informant and the petitioners used to reside separate to the husband of the daughter of the informant.

Admittedly, the daughter of the informant died within two month of her marriage at her matrimonial house.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50488 of 2019(2) dt.14-08-2019 3/3 Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from today and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T