Patna High CourtCR. MISC./67166/2019rejected

Ranjeet Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2019-10-24Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67166 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2018 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna ====================================================== RANJEET RAI Son of Kesho Rai R/o- Hanumanganj, P.S.- Shahpur, DistrictPatna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ghanshyam Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-10-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sahpur P.S. Case No.349 of 2018 registered under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant (father of the deceased) alleged that all accused persons were demanding dowry and due to nonfulfillment of dowry, they ignited fire on the body of the daughter of the informant. The daughter of the informant got extensive burn injury and the informant brought her for treatment in Apollo Burn Hospital, Patna where she succumbed to the injury.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant himself filed petition alleging that no demand of dowry was made and his daughter got burn injury during course

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67166 of 2019(2) dt.24-10-2019 2/2 of cooking but from perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it appears that the informant alleged that all accused persons were demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of dowry, they ignited fire on the body of daughter of the informant. The daughter of the informant got extensive burn injury and the informant brought her for treatment in Apollo Burn Hospital, Patna where she succumbed to the injury. It appears that later on the informant was gained over and he filed petition, which is an example of tampering with the evidence.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T