Sanjay Chaubey @ Sanjay Kumar Choubey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 80750 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-736 Year-2018 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Sanjay Chaubey @ Sanjay Kumar Choubey (Male), aged about 35 years, Son of Late Birendra Chaubey, Resident of Village - Chhoti Sikarhata (Khurd), P.S.- Sikarhata, District - Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bikramdeo Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Natha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Ara Nawada PS Case No. 736 of 2018 dated 24.10.2018 instituted under Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, is of killing her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the allegation against him is of killing the daughter of the informant for dowry, there is no mentioning of what the demand was. It was further submitted that the informant has wrongly

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80750 of 2019 dt.07-01-2020 2/2 stated that he had not been informed about the death and that the body was disposed off behind their back.

5. Learned APP submitted that the mere fact that death occurred within four years of marriage and the deceased being a young girl, even otherwise, it was the duty of the petitioner, being the husband in whose house the death occurred, to have informed the authorities, as clearly the death was not natural of such a young woman.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T