Pochu Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9448 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2023 Thana- KIUL District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.

Pochu Pandit S/O Late Tano Pandit Resident Of Village-Ramsir, P.S.-Kiul, District-Lakhisarai.

2.

Pramila Devi W/O Pochu Pandit Resident Of Village-Ramsir, P.S.-Kiul, District-Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Parmanand Pd. Nr. Sahi, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 20-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Kiul P.S. Case No. 86 of 2023 lodged under Sections 304B/34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioners against whom there is allegation that that the marriage of the informant's daughter has been solemnized with son of the petitioners and due to demand of dowry, upon non fulfillment, they all killed by strangulating her neck.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. He submits that petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are in custody since 21.08.2023 having clean antecedent. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9448 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/2 further submits that the deceased was ill and for treatment, petitioners were consulted with local doctor and then she was brought to Lakhisarai Hospital and in the way of Begusarai, she died in course of treatement.

6. Counsel further submits that the allegation made in the F.I.R., is general and omnibus in nature and with a view to harass the petitioners and their family.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that this case has been lodged under section 304B of the I.P.C. and there is no disclosure in the petition that whether the husband has surrendered or not. He further submits that husband has moved for anticipatory bail.

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, let the petitioners above named, be granted bail, after framing of charge, if not framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai in connection with Kiul P.S. Case No. 86 of 2023, subject to the following conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T