Hari Manjhi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7679 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2018 Thana- MAHKAR District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Hari Manjhi, Son of Late Matun Manjhi, Resident of village-Kodihra, Bhui Toli, Police Station-Mahkar, District-Gaya 2.

Bhagwatia Devi, Wife of Hari Manjhi, Resident of village-Kodihra, Bhui Toli, Police Station-Mahkar, District-Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-05-2019 Though, the explanation submitted by the office, in compliance of order dated 03.05.2019, is vague but the same is accepted.

Office is directed to be careful in future.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Mahkar P.S. Case No. 118 of 2018, registered under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. The accusation is that informant, Lallu Manjhi, performed the marriage of his daughter with Ranjay Manjhi, son

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7679 of 2019(4) dt.10-05-2019 2/3 of the petitioners, but after marriage, Ranjay Manjhi and his family members did not want to keep his daughter, Anju, because Ranjay Manjhi had illicit relation with another lady, which was being protest by his daughter Anju Devi. In the meantime, Anju Devi, blessed with two children, namely, Om Prakash Mamjhi, aged about 4 years and Ashik Manjhi aged about 1 1⁄2. In spite of that, behaviour of husband and in-laws of his daughter was not changed with her. On 19.06.2018, in the morning, informant received information that his daughter has been killed by her husband and in-laws. On such information, he went there and found the dead body of his daughter Anju Devi along with her two minor children in canal.

On query, informant came to know that on preceding night, quarrel took place in between her daughter, Anju Devi and her in-laws and his daughter was killed by pressing her neck and also concealed the dead body of Anju Devi and her two minor children in canal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly, both petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, Anju Devi, daughter of the informant and they used to reside separate to Ranjay Manjhi, husband of the deceased.

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposite the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7679 of 2019(4) dt.10-05-2019 3/3 prayer of the bail of the petitioners and submits that the dead body of Anju Devi with her two minor children were found in canal of Sasural village of Anju Devi and the cause of death of Anju Devi is asphyxia due to pressing her neck. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners under Section 338 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T