Ramanand Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58222 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2019 Thana- SONBERSA District- Saharsa ====================================================== 1.

RAMANAND PASWAN, Son of Late Debo Paswan, Resident of Village - Haripur, P.S.- Sonbarsa Raj, Dist.- Saharsa.

2.

Munni Devi, Wife of Ramanand Paswan, Resident of Village - Haripur, P.S.- Sonbarsa Raj, Dist.- Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Pronoti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-11-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sonbarsa (Sonbarsa Raj) Police Station Case No. 58 of 2019, disclosing offences under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioners, as per the First Information Report, is that the daughter of the informant was married to the son of the petitioners in December, 2018 and after some time, the petitioners, along with other co-accused persons, started demanding one motorcycle from the deceased and her family members and due to non-fulfillment of the said

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58222 of 2019(3) dt.25-11-2019 2/2 demand, she has been killed by administering poison. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case inasmuch as the petitioner no. 1 happens to be the father-in-law of the deceased and petitioner no. 2 is her mother-in-law and they have not committed any offence in the manner alleged. He further submits that the deceased had consumed poison due to the fact that she got information that her husband has got married with another lady.

Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased has died within seven years of marriage and there is specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the petitioners, who are father-in-law and other-in-law of the deceased, I am not inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of anticipatory bail.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √