The Court declined pre-arrest bail to the petitioner as he was apprehended under Sections 304B, 201, and 120B/34IPC: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 355720 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 539 Year 2019 Thana KHAJEKALA District Patna Subodh Rai @ Subodh Kumar Male aged about 25 years Son of Ram Kripal Rai Resident of Jafarabad PS RaghopurDistrict Vaishal The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State For the Informant Mr. Pramod Kumar Advocate Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay APP Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State and Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh learned counsel for the informant. 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Khajekalan PS Case No. 539 of 2019 dated 24.12.2019 instituted under Sections 304B 201 and 120B 34 of the Indian 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other members of the family of the deceased’s husband had Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355720 dt.02 08 2021 killed her by cutting the neck and also causing various cut injuries on other parts of the body 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the son of the sister of the husband of the deceased and had no connection with the affairs of the deceased. It was submitted that he lives in a different village. Further learned counsel submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent. It was submitted that the petitioner has no interest with regard to any dowry or other issues which the deceased may have had in the matrimonial home. It was further submitted that the father in law of the deceased has been granted anticipatory bail by a co ordinate 6. Learned APP from the case diary submitted that witnesses have stated that all the family members of the husband of the deceased were involved in such gruesome crime including the petitioner. It was submitted that from the manner in which the crime has been committed it is obvious that it could not have been the work of only one person and thus in view of the petitioner being a young male person and very closely related to the husband of the deceased and the allegation made by the informant and other witnesses about his complicity it cannot be ruled out that he was not party to the crime. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355720 dt.02 08 2021 7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioner being closely related to the husband of the deceased obviously cannot plead innocence. It was submitted that the husband of the deceased is still absconding and anticipatory bail petition of the elder brother of the husband of the deceased and mother in law of the deceased is still pending in the High Court and despite time being taken the husband of the deceased has not 8. 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 petitioner 9. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed 10. Interim protection granted to the petitioner under order dated 25.06.2021 stands vacated (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioner was apprehended under Section 304B Indian Penal code, “Dowry death”, section 201, “Causing disappearance of evidence of the offense, or giving false information to screen offender”, section 120B, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy”, section 34IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This is in connection with Khajekalan PS Case No. 539 of 2019 dated 24.12.2019. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 2nd of August 2021 in the case of Subodh Rai @ Subodh Kumar versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 35578 of 2020, Mr. Pramod Kumar Represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay represented as the additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Gajendra represented as the advocate for the informant the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner along with other members of the family of the husband was accused of killing the deceased by cutting her neck and also causing various other cut injuries on different parts of the body. The counsel for the petitioner held that the petitioner is the son of the sister of the husband of the deceased, and the petitioner has no relation with the affairs relating to the deceased and her death. The counsel held that the petitioner resides in a different village and he does not have any criminal antecedent, the petitioner has no interest relating to dowry or any other issues which the wife might have faced in her husband’s home. Even the father-in-law has been granted anticipatory bail by the court and hence it is reasonable to grant bail to the petitioner. The Additional Public Prosecutor held that according to the witness, all the members of the family were involved in this crime which includes the petitioner, the prosecutor held that the manner in which the crime was committed it clearly proves that it was not done by one person and help from the family members were taken, in addition, the petitioner being a young male and closely related to the husband and the based on the allegations made by the informant and the witnesses, it cannot be ruled out that he wasn’t involved in this gruesome crime and objected the bail. The counsel representing the informant gave light to the fact that the petitioner was very closely related to the husband of the deceased, and anticipatory bail for the elder brother of the husband and mother-in-law is still pending in the high court and the husband is yet to surrender and therefore the petitioner cannot plead innocence based on the evidence and facts and circumstances.