Prabhat Ranjan @ Mantu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50407 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -305 Year- 2015 Thana -DHAMDAHA District- PURNIA ====================================================== Prabhat Ranjan @ Mantu, Son of Manoj Yadav, Resident of VillageBishanpur, Police Station- Dhamdaha, District- Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nirala, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 15-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in custody since 15.09.2016 in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 305/15 for offences punishable under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased Priyanka Devi, along with his family members used to torture her for demand of motorcycle, have administered poison and killed her. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased died of natural death as she was pregnant and during pregnancy there was some

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50407 of 2016 (4) dt.15-12-2016 2/3 complication. Petitioner being husband had taken her to various doctors and she died due to complication during delivery.

By order dated 29.11.2016 viscera report was called for from the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna through the learned court below. Report has been received under sealed cover and has been opened before the Court. The director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna vide Memo No. 3010 dated 09.12.2016 has sent the opinion of the Scientific Officer, Forensic Laboratory, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, who has opined that the viscera does not contain any poison. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother-inlaw, father-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased have since been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. However, learned APP for the State submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and is named in the First Information Report, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and submissions of the parties, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50407 of 2016 (4) dt.15-12-2016 3/3 satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 305/15. Let copy of the viscera report be sent to the learned court below.

(Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajesh/- U T