Pramod Singh @ Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60049 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2017 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== Pramod Singh @ Pramod Kumar, aged about 38 years, Male, Son of Late Ramanandan Singh @ Ramanand Singh, Resident of Village Rana Bigha, P.S. Barh, District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Arun For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 26-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Barh P.S. Case No.247 of 2017, registered under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, brother of the deceased, disclosed that his sister, Munni Devi was married with the petitioner, Pramod Singh in the year 2007. On 26.08.2017, his sister rang him on his mobile no.8292267891 from her mobile no.7493963769 and disclosed that her husband, brother-in-law, Subodh Singh, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were assaulting and burning her. Thereafter mobile was switched of. When the informant inquired about his sister in the morning through phone, he came to know that his sister died on account of burn injuries.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60049 of 2019(2) dt.26-09-2019 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2007 and there is no demand of dowry. The deceased got three children from the wedlock but it appears that the deceased before her death rang his brother, the informant, about the occurrence and disclosed that the petitioner and others were assaulting and burning her and in the morning when he inquired about his sister through phone, he came to know that his sister died due to burn injuries. It appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that during the course of investigation also the witnesses have supported the factum of occurrence.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

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