Mohan Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(From The Official Chambers Via Video Conferencing) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18038 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-483 Year-2020 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

MOHAN PANDIT SON OF LATE BHAGWAN PANDIT @ LATE RAM JATAN PANDIT Resident of Village - Kurji, P.o.- Mohammadpur, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna.

2.

HIRAMANI DEVI WIFE OF MOHAN PANDIT Resident of Village - Kurji, P.o.- Mohammadpur, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna. 3.

CHANCHAL DEVI WIFE OF SANJAY PANDIT Resident of Village - Kurji, P.o.- Mohammadpur, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Asha Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-01-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 483 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant, Pratima Devi is mother of deceased, Jyoti

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18038 of 2021(2) dt.20-01-2022 2/3 Kumari. As per FIR, Chandan Kumar, the husband of the deceased called the mother of the informant and told her that the deceased was willing to go to her maike. Thereafter, the deceased Jyoti Kumar had a conversation with the informant on call and she apprised the informant that if she was not permitted to come to her maike, the matrimonial inmates shall murder her. All of sudden the conversation broke due to sudden stoppage of mobile set. The informant rushed to the matrimonial house of the deceased and saw that the matrimonial inmates of her daughter were carrying her on a cot. Having seen the informant, by putting the cot on the ground they fled away. The marks of assault were noticed on the dead body by the informant.

The face of the dead body was black and lips were slit. The informant after seeing the dead body has mentioned that it appeared the accused persons killed the deceased by administering some poisonous substances. Prior to the occurrence the accused persons were making pressure upon the deceased to payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- for opening a shop. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No. 1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and petitioner No. 3, Chanchal Devi, is sister-inlaw of the deceased.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18038 of 2021(2) dt.20-01-2022 3/3 concern with the deceased and her husband. There is allegation of demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. There is specific allegation in the FIR itself that all the accused persons badly assaulted the deceased and they forcibly administered poisonous substance to her. In my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) SONALI/- U T