Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava rejected the bail application of Ranjan Sonar tried under sections 304(B) and 34 IPC for dowry death. The Court found no inclination to allow bail due to serious allegations of dowry demand and torture.
Application for bail is rejected. Petitioner remains in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33646 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2018 Thana- BANMANKHI District- Purnia
======================================================
RANJAN SONAR @ RANJAN KRO SONI Son of Upendra Sonar Resident of Village- Chakla, P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
4 13-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is accused in connection with Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 137 of 2018 registered under section 304(B)/34 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, Purnea.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Further submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 10.12.2018.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is the husband of the deceased. There is direct allegation of demand of dowry and torture. It is also alleged that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33646 of 2019(4) dt.13-09-2019 2/2
the petitioner and in-laws' family members of the deceased tried to kill her by burn injury. Thereafter, the deceased was died in course of treatment. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of bail.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
shailendra/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case under Section 304(B) and 34 IPC involving dowry death allegations.
If the united criminal antecedents are relevant to the bail decision.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranjan Sonar @ Ranjan Kro Soni
The State of Bihar
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
