Birendra Prasad Verma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4485 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2021 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Birendra Prasad Verma S/o Late Badri Prasad Varma Resident of Naya Tola, Dhaka Near Dhaka Block, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran. 2.
Smt. Lalita Verma W/o Birendra Prasad Verma Resident of Naya Tola, Dhaka Near Dhaka Block, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Upendra Mohan Verma Son of Late Chaturbhuj Prasad Verma Resident of Aamgola, Muzaffarpur, P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-07-2022 Heard both parties.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in complaintcum-protest Case No. 163 of 2021 corresponding Trial No. 2004 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, petitioners along with other co-accused used to torture the daughter of informant for dowry. Ultimately, she was done to death by the accused persons including petitioners due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4485 of 2022(2) dt.28-07-2022 2/2 initially complaint-cum-protest petition has been lodged later on it was converted into FIR. Petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is mother-in-law of the deceased and they are separate in mess and property have got no concern with the family affairs of the deceased and her husband. There is general and omnibus allegation. In fact, the deceased died due to illness. Petitioners have got clean antecedents.
Counsel for informant however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioners are in-laws of the deceased and deceased died in unnatural circumstance within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T