High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Naveen Kumar vs State Of Bihar on 22 September, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Naveen Kumar vs State Of Bihar on 22 September, 2010
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                           Cr.Misc. No.33806 of 2010
                    NAVEEN KUMAR SON OF SHRI SHANKAR SAH,
    PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHANDPURA, P.S.- NEEMA
              CHANDPURA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI
                                        Versus
                                 STATE OF BIHAR
                                      -----------

2 22/09/2010 Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, the learned

Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

and learned APP for the State.

Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was

rejected twice. He is an accused of a case registered

under Sections 498 A, 304 B/34 of the Indian Penal

Code. His Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. (s) 1148 of

2009 was dismissed at not pressed before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

The informant Santosh Kumar has married

his daughter on 19.11.2003 with the petitioner. Out of

that wedlock two issues- a son and a daughter aged 3

and 2 years respectively were born. Allegation is that

after marriage the petitioner and other family members

were torturing the informant’s daughter in connection

with demand of additional dowry. Ultimately she was

killed on account of her failure to bring the desired

dowry articles.

Submission is that the marriage was not

arranged so there was no question of demand of dowry,
2

because dowry is demanded only in cases of arranged

marriages. It is further submitted that the petitioner is

in custody since 14.12.2007 and for five months he

was granted provisional bail for treatment of his ailing

father and during the period of provisional bail he has

not misused the privilege of bail.

The petitioner is the husband of the deceased

in a case registered under Section 304 B of the Indian

Penal Code. There is specific allegation against him that

he being the husband connived with other family

members and in that connivance the victim was

tortured and ultimately eliminated. The elimination was

only because of her failure to bring the desired articles

by way of additional dowry.

Considering the allegation, I see no reason to

take a different view from the earlier. Accordingly,

prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected.

(Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)
avin