Umesh Ram And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38245 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2016 Thana -JOGAPATTI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Umesh Ram son of Somari Ram,

2. Babloo Ram son of Somari Ram,

3. Chhathiya Devi wife of Somari Ram,

4. Upendra Ram son of Amika Ram,

5. Manohar Ram son of Amika Ram,

6. Amika Ram son of Late Budhan Ram, All residents of Village- Bharathapatti, P.S.-Jogapatti (Nawalpur), District- West Champaran.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Manoj Kumar - 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-09-2016 Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manoj Kumar no.1, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel, who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of the informant. Six petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Jogapatti( Nawalpur) P.S. Case No.109 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sections 304(B) , 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38245 of 2016 (3) dt.20-09-2016 2/3 petitioners that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are brothers of husband of the deceased, petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law, petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are sons of uncle of the husband of the deceased and petitioner no.6 is cousin brother of father-in-law of the deceased. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that entire family members have falsely been implicated in the present case. Even the distant relatives, who are residing separately, have been made accused in the F.I.R.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the informant, opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, submit that the marriage of daughter of the informant was solemnized in the year 2014 and there is allegation of demand of dowry and torture and the fact has been stated in the F.I.R. itself that after murdering, the dead body was concealed/ thrown in a separate place, which was recovered subsequently during investigation.

Keeping in view the nature of accusation as well as the fact that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. registered for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, there is no reason for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38245 of 2016 (3) dt.20-09-2016 3/3 U T