Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49776/2017rejected

Shiv Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2017-12-08Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49776 of 2017 (3) dt.08-12-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49776 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -35 Year- 2015 Thana -PARASBIGHA District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Shiv Chaudhary, Son of Late Ram Briksh Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Pandul Tola Mathiya, P.S.- Paras Bigha, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Asharaf Ansari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 08-12-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Paras Bigha Police Station Case No. 35 of 2015, disclosing offences under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased has never assaulted her wife and never demanded any dowry from her. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion only, which is evident from F.I.R. itself. Hence, the petitioner who is of clean

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49776 of 2017 (3) dt.08-12-2017 antecedent deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased is named in the F.I.R. and he is sole responsible for the murder of the deceased-wife. Moreover, the witnesses have supported the prosecution version which is evident from paragraphs 2, 8, and 9 of the case diary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to this petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T