Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30105/2017rejected

Nitesh Kumar Singh @ Nitesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-06Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30105 of 2017 (4) dt.06-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30105 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -358 Year- 2016 Thana -KAHALGAON District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Nitesh Kumar Singh @ Nitesh Singh, son of Jagarnath Singh, Resident of Village- Harchandpur, P.S.- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Amrendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Kahalgaon Police Station Case No. 358 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner and no specific overt act is attributed to him. In fact, the petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased and he has never assaulted nor demanded any dowry from the deceased, the deceased never likes her husband and complainant was also in illicit relationship with another person prior to marriage and on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30105 of 2017 (4) dt.06-09-2017 account of that petitioner used to warn her for her wrong doing. The deceased herself committed suicide Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner happens to be husband of the decease is solely responsible for the death of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T