Abhay Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 907 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31686 of 2020
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2020 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur
      ======================================================

1. Abhay Kumar, (Male), aged about 37 years, son of Satya Vishnudeo Singh,

2. Bharti Sinha, (Female), aged about 42 years, wife of Abhay Kumar.

Both resident of Village - Repura, Rampur Bali, P.S.- Saraiya (Jaintpur O.P.), District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-02-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter after referred to as the 'APP') for

the State.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Saraiya (Jaintpur OP) PS Case No.191 of 2020 dated

22.03.2020 instituted under Sections 302 and 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they

had killed the father of the informant, who was related to the

petitioner no.1 and was also the father of the first husband of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31686 of 2020 dt.17-02-2021

petitioner no. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the allegations are totally false and concocted. It was submitted

that though the death occurred on 16.03.2020, but the FIR was

instituted only on 22.03.2020, which clearly shows that as part

of some strategy and for oblique reasons the same was done. It

was submitted that the petitioners are being targeted under false

conception that they would take away part of the property of the

deceased, who was the father of the informant and had four

daughters and only one son, who was the first husband of the

petitioner no.2. It was submitted that the petitioner no.1 also has

no reason to kill the deceased as he was also an agnate and there

was property in his share and, in fact, was taking care of the

deceased as the informant and her three sisters were living in

their matrimonial homes. Learned counsel submitted that the

petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP submitted that from the FIR and the

order of the Court below it is clear that the death was not natural

and was found to have been caused due to asphyxia. He

submitted that the fact being that the petitioners were the

persons, who took the deceased to the hospital, but on way, he

died, as is reflected from the certificate issued by the concerned Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31686 of 2020 dt.17-02-2021

hospital, prima facie and for the present, the finger of suspicion

strongly points towards the petitioners as they were the persons,

who took the deceased to the hospital but only on the

intervention of the informant, the postmortem was done and

further, only upon the postmortem revealing foul play, the FIR

being lodged, such delay, for the present, cannot be said to be a

pointer towards falsity of the allegation.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T