Patna High CourtCR. MISC./66289/2023dismissed

Sushila Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2023-10-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66289 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-362 Year-2023 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar ====================================================== SUSHILA DEVI W/O VASHISTH PANDIT R/O VILLAGE- NIMEJ, P.SBRHAMPUR, DISTT.- BUXAR. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashwini Kumar Rai, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP For Respondent :

Mr. Anand Kr. Ojha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Pd. Nat, learned APP for the State and Mr. Anand Kr. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application for grant of regular bail arise out of Brahmpur P.S. Case No. 362 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per F.I.R, the petitioner along with other coaccused persons is involved in killing of the deceased for demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is general and omnibus allegation levelled against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66289 of 2023(2) dt.16-10-2023 2/2 marriage of deceased was solemnized with Shakti Prakash Pandit on 28.02.2023 thereafter, she went to her matrimonial home and started leading her conjugal life. It is alleged that after some months, the husband of the deceased along with accused persons started torturing her and demanded dowry. On account of non-fulfillment of demand, they killed the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was recovered and postmortem was conducted.

6. In such a recent marriage, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner has been killed. It appears that the entire family is responsible for killing of the deceased.

7. In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected herewith.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Harsh/ U T