Nitesh Kumar Singh @ Nitesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1046 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-466 Year-2023 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Nitesh Kumar Singh @ Nitesh Kumar Son of Sri Mrigendra Singh @ Sri Mrigendra Kumar Singh, R/O Village- Majhgain, P.S.- Amarpur, Dist.- Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-04-2024 Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Amarpur PS Case No. 466 of 2023, FIR dated 29.06.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

According to prosecution case, the daughter of the informant was subjected to torture by her in-laws and due to nonfulfillment of dowry demand. It is further alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons has murdered the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1046 of 2024(4) dt.09-04-2024 2/2 petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the ground that petitioner is husband of the deceased and the allegation levelled in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that there is no evidence which suggests the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.

5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand on the basis of the materials available on record and the case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is husband of the deceased and it was the sole responsibility of the petitioner to take care of the deceased and it has come during investigation that number of witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Amarpur PS Case No. 466 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka/Court concerned, Banka.

7.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T