Arvind Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84268 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2019 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya ====================================================== ARVIND SINGH Son of Late Mosafir Singh R/o vill - Kaji Bigha, P.S. - Tankuppa, Distt. - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramashish For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 11-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 69 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned J.M.-1st Class, Gaya.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons are said to have killed the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84268 of 2023(2) dt.11-01-2024 2/2 specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner is working in Surat and when the petitioner was on duty his wife slipped from stairs and sustained head injury, then he came from his duty and brought his wife to hospital where she was declared dead and, thereafter, funeral program of the deceased, Kiran Devi, was performed by the petitioner at Surat. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the petitioner has not enclosed any record regarding treatment of the deceased in hospital.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the fact that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

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