Shashi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85898 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2014 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran ====================================================== Shashi Kumar son of Ram Chandra pd. Yadav Resident of village- Bangra, P.S.- Muffassil chhapra in the district of Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadavadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-03-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 34 of the I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being the husband has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted that the informant has instituted the instant F.I.R. alleging that his sister was married to the petitioner on 11.05.2013 but after marriage, the victim was being tortured for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is next alleged that on 13.09.2013 the victim came back to her parental home from where she had gone to collect her certificates on 23.09.2013 but never returned, as such, alleges that the accused

2/4 persons including the petitioner might have killed the deceased. The learned counsel submits what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that the victim went missing from her parental home on 23.09.2013, thereafter instead of instituting an F.I.R. instantly, a complaint case was instituted on 20.01.2014 i.e. after more than three months of the victim going missing, based on which, the instant F.I.R. came to be instituted on 25.03.2014. It is thus submitted that if the sister of the informant went missing on 23.09.2013, what prompted the informant not to institute an F.I.R. promptly.

It is next submitted no doubt the sister of the informant was married to the petitioner in the year 2013 but then out of the wedlock, no child was born, as she never stayed with the petitioner and it is the case of the informant himself that she came back to her parental home on 13.09.2013 from where she went missing on 23.09.2013. It is further submitted that the victim was in love with someone, as such, she fled and the informant was aware of this fact and hence did not institute an F.I.R. promptly thinking that the police might recover the victim. It is also submitted that till date, there is no trace of the victim i.e.

3/4 presumption in law is that the victim is no more. It is further submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why the petitioner would indulge in such an occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R when O.P. No.2 had gone to her parental home. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of investigation, the police has recorded that the case is pending investigation against unknown with regard to abduction of the victim. It is further submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Chhapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.50/2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

4/4

6. However, it is made clear that in the event if the charge sheet is submitted in the case connecting the petitioner with the offence, in that event the present anticipatory bail order shall loose its effect.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T