Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J
PRAKASH KUMAR SONI – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
CR. MISC./19676/2021
Compromise is not admissible in cases involving offenses under Section 302 or 304B of the IPC.
Headnote:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Prakash Kumar Soni, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 343 of 2019, alleging that he apprehended arrest for offenses under Sections 341, 323, 328, 302, 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner claimed that he had compromised with the deceased girl's father and that his actions, such as taking her to the hospital and informing his in-laws, indicated that he was not involved in her death.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application, holding that the offenses fell prima facie under Section 304B of the IPC, which carries a presumption that must be disproved during trial. The court further noted that compromise is not admissible in cases involving offenses under Section 302 or 304B of the IPC.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the alleged offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: Offenses under Section 304B of the IPC carry a presumption that must be disproved during trial. Compromise is not admissible in cases involving offenses under Section 302 or 304B of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19676 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2019 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
PRAKASH KUMAR SONI SON OF LATE ANIL SETH RESIDENT OF
MOHALLA- WELFARE, AMARA TALAB, P.S.- SASARAM
(MUFFASIL) , DISTRICT- ROHTAS.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr.Nirbhay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH
SHARMA
ORAL ORDER
3
04-01-2022
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 343 of 2019 registered
for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 328, 302, 498A, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
Having heard Sri Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned
counsel for the petitioner at length, wherein learned counsel has
stated that the compromise has arrived at between the father of
the deceased girl and the petitioner. He has further submitted
that petitioner has taken the lady to the hospital and also
informed his in-laws and therefore, his natural behaviour
reflects that he cannot be involved in the death of the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19676 of 2021(3) dt.04-01-2022
2/2
Per contra, learned counsel for the state submits that
such offence falls prima facie under Section 304 B and a
presumption has to be drawn which is required disprove during
trial of cases of such nature.
Taking into consideration of the aforesaid aspects that
marriage took place two years back and compromise cannot be
admissible in such cases where offence is under Section 302 or
304B of the IPC, I am not inclined to grant benefit of
anticipatory bail to the above named petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
pravinkumar/-
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)
U
T
