Ragini Devi @ Rajni Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8305 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-466 Year-2021 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

RAGINI DEVI @ RAJNI DEVI W/O AMARJEET RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- POHIYA, P.S.- GARKHA, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA 2.

SANMATO KUWAR W/O SHAMBHU RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGEPOHIYA, P.S.- GARKHA, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

SHANTI DEVI W/O SHIV NATH RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGETAHAL TOLA, P.O.- JILKABAD, P.S.- GARKHA, DIST.- SARAN ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-09-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 466 of 2021 registered for offence punishable under section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The informant is mother of the deceased. As per allegation, the marriage of the daughter of the informant was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8305 of 2022(2) dt.01-09-2022 2/3 solemnized with co-accused Ranjit Kumar and after marriage, the accused persons, including the petitioners, subjected her daughter to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of a 'four wheeler' vehicle. On 03.07.2021, the informant got an information that the accused persons, including the petitioners, committed murder of her daughter by administering poisonous substance and when the informant went to matrimonial house of her daughter, the accused persons had absconded therefrom. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is Gotni of the deceased, they have no concern with the dowry demand and the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It appears that the witnesses in the case diary have supported the occurrence, though the compromise has been taken place between the parties.

Considering the nature of allegation, I do not think it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail. If the petitioners surrender before the court below and make a prayer for regular bail, their regular bail petition shall be considered without being prejudiced by this order.

With these observations, this criminal miscellaneous petition is rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8305 of 2022(2) dt.01-09-2022 3/3 Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

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