Raju Mahato v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6356 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2023 Thana- SIDHWALIYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Raju Mahato son of Jay Kishore Mahto Village - Sher, P.S. - Sidhwaliya, District - Gopalganj 2.

Jay Kishun Mahto Son Of Late Deoraj Mahto Village - Sher, P.S. - Sidhwaliya, District - Gopalganj 3.

Sonia Devi Wife Of Jay Kishun Mahto Village - Sher, P.S. - Sidhwaliya, District - Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bijay Prakash Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for offence under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegation against petitioners is that they committed the murder of daughter of the informant over the issue of non-payment of installments of loan, which was taken by her (deceased) for petitioners.

4. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that marriage of deceased (daughter of informant) was solemnized 15 years ago with Raju Mahto (petitioner no.1), whereas petitioner nos. 2

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6356 of 2024(4) dt.02-05-2024 2/2 & 3 are father and mother of petitioner no. 1. Informant is not eye-witness of the occurrence. Petitioners never demanded any dowry and due family feud, the deceased herself committed suicide. It is further submitted that on 21.08.2023, the informant has filed a petition before the Court below regarding noninvolvement of the petitioners in the aforesaid crime.

5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is specific and direct allegation against petitioners that they, conspired with each other, committed the murder of daughter of the informant.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T