Rama Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74982 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-293 Year-2023 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

RAMA MAHTO S/O LATE TOKHAN MAHTO VILLAGESUNDRAPUR MALAHI TOLA, WARD NO. 14, PS. KESARIYA, DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN 2.

DHANESHA DEVI W/O RAMA MAHTO VILLAGE- SUNDRAPUR MALAHI TOLA, WARD NO. 14, PS. KESARIYA, DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Karandeep Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP Mr.Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 04-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. 2.

Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kesariya P.S. Case No.293 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 304(B) and 120(B) of the IPC. 3.

As per the F.I.R., the daughter of the informant has been killed in her matrimonial house due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have not committed any offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case due to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74982 of 2023(2) dt.04-12-2023 2/2 ulterior motive. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 is the fatherin-law and petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and they have never made any dowry demand and their son used to live separately from the petitioners. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioners and the daughter of the informant has been killed within one month of marriage in the matrimonial house.

6.

Considering the nature of allegation and the fact that the deceased has died within one month of marriage in the matrimonial house, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T