Jai Mangal Rai vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 373 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28132 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2019 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR District-
                                           Muzaffarpur
     ======================================================

1. Jai Mangal Rai, aged about 54 years, son of Jamadar Rai,

2. Navin Kumar, aged about 26 years, son of Jai Mangal Rai, Both resident of Village- Barmatpur, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-01-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the

'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Sadar PS Case No.350 of 2019 dated 28.05.2019 instituted

under Sections 201, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners and two

others is of killing the daughter of the informant and burning her

body to hide the evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28132 of 2020 dt.27-01-2021

petitioner no.1 is the father and petitioner no. 2 brother, of the

husband of the deceased. It was submitted that the petitioners

are living separately after partition and they had no concern with

the affairs of the deceased and her husband.

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners being

the father and brother of the husband of the deceased, cannot be

absolved of their responsibility as death has taken in the

matrimonial home within five years of marriage and the body

being burnt without even informing the relatives of the deceased

or police clearly indicates that there was foul play.

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