Prabhawati Devi @ Prabhuti Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6603 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2022 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.

PRABHAWATI DEVI @ PRABHUTI DEVI WIFE OF RAM AYODHYA SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PURANI HARIPUR, P.S.- KOILWAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR.

2.

RAM AYODHYA SAH @ RAM AYODHYA MAHTO SON OF LATE MOTI LAL MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PURANI HARIPUR, P.S.- KOILWAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR.

3.

RINA DEVI DAUGHTER OF RAM AYODHYA SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PURANI HARIPUR, P.S.- KOILWAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs.Rina Sinha Mr.Sudish Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 5.

25-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and informant.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 304(B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is a case of dowry death. Petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is father-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is married sister-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that marriage of son of petitioners no. 1 & 2 was solemnized with deceased on 07.12.2021. She was not willing to live in her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6603 of 2023(5) dt.25-07-2023 2/2 matrimonial house, as she wanted to marry another person, but her parents forcibly married with son of petitioners no. 1 & 2. Just one month after the marriage, she fled away from her matrimonial house with ornaments with her boy friend. During course of investigation, several witnesses were examined and they stated that the victim (deceased) left the matrimonial house without giving any information.

4. However, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioners and submitted that there is specific and direct allegation against these petitioners that they killed the daughter of informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and disappeared her dead-body.

5. Considering the fact that the incident took place soon after the marriage of the victim (deceased) and there is specific allegation of demand of dowry against these petitioners, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T