Sanjay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10978 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -24 Year- 2016 Thana -BAGENGOLA District- BUXAR ====================================================== Sanjay Singh S/o Kameshwar Singh, Resident of Village- Khochariyaon, P.S. Bagengola, District Buxar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-04-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bagen Gola P.S. Case No. 24/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The informant alleged that his daughter was married with the petitioner about three years ago and she got a male child out of her wedlock, but the petitioner and others began to demand additional dowry and a motorcycle. The informant got information that his daughter was killed and her dead-body was disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant came in the house of the petitioner after receiving information about the death of his daughter and participated in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10978 of 2017 (3) dt.04-04-2017 2/2 cremation.

It is submitted that petitioner lodged the case only because he had apprehension that ornaments of his daughter may be demanded, but from perusal of the record, it appears that the informant has made allegation against the petitioner and others. After receiving the information about the death of his daughter, the informant went to the house of the petitioner, but did not find the dead-body of his daughter. The informant alleged that the petitioner and others disposed of the dead-body in order to screen out the evidence.

Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T