Rajeev Ranjan @ Rajeev Ranjan Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86230 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2024 Thana- Ratanpur District- Begusarai ====================================================== Rajeev Ranjan @ Rajeev Ranjan Prasad Singh Son of Late Kapildev Singh Village -Ibrahimpur, PS -Chhaurahi, District -Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2025
1. Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ratanpur P.S. Case no.45 of 2024 registered under sections 103, 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S, 2023.
3. The allegation in the F.I.R is with regard to causing death of the informant's daughter against her husband (petitioner) and other family members on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the present F.I.R has been lodged by the
2/4 mother of the deceased on 11.07.2024 and it has been stated in the F.I.R itself that she had received the information about the occurrence on 10.07.2024. The marriage of the deceased along with the petitioner took place in the year 2016 and during course of investigation a totally different reason for the death of the deceased has been indicated which is that of the petitioner having some illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (bhabhi). Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that as a matter of fact the deceased was not well and she was even being treated by a doctor and when the deceased was seriously ill, she was immediately taken to the Begusarai City Hospital and the said fact is supported by paragraph 27 of the case diary and also from the assertion of the informant herself in F.I.
R as the informant has also stated that she got to know from neighbors that the deceased was taken in an ambulance. Paragraph no.28 of the case diary has also been referred to on behalf of the petitioner which contains the statement of the doctor who has stated that the deceased was brought to him but he found that she was dead, however, he did not find any injury on her body nor any froth etc., was found coming out of the mouth nor any blood stain.
3/4 three children and they were leading a peaceful conjugal life, whereafter some misunderstanding developed. The supervision note refers to an application given by the petitioner stating therein that the informant was well informed who had also come to the hospital. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further points out paragraph no. 110 of the case diary which contains statement of the daughter of the deceased who has also categorically stated that her mother was very unwell due to which she died and her father had taken her mother to the hospital. It is further submitted that it is not a case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and hence, presumption clause is not attracted and at the end, it is submitted that the petitioner is suffering from intestinal cancer for which he has been operated upon and his entire medical report of Tata Memorial Hosptial, Bombay has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit.
5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State on the ground that petitioner is the husband of the deceased who is primarily responsible for the welfare of his wife.
6. This Court would not have normally acceded to the prayer of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner is the husband and the wife has died in her matrimonial home.
4/4 However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a patient of cancer and all his documents are on record supported by the materials collected during course of investigation, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks, in connection with Ratanpur P.S. Case no.45 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, 2023 and subject to the further condition that petitioner is directed to co-operate in the investigation/trial and would make himself available before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T