Suma Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19930 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2020 Thana- DHARHARA District- Munger ====================================================== 1.

SUMA DEVI WIFE OF NARSINGH YADAV @ NARSINGH PRASAD VIMAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BARI GOVINDPUR, P.S.- DHARAHRA, DISTRICT -MUNGER 2.

NARSINGH YADAV @ NARSINGH PRASAD VIMAL SON OF DOMAN YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARI GOVINDPUR, P.S. DHARAHRA, DISTRICT MUNGER ... ... Petitioners.

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual Court proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 326, 376 & 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code but later on Section 302 IPC was added and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19930 of 2021(2) dt.17-01-2022 2/2 The petitioners in association of other co-accused are said to have set ablaze the informant and lastly she died. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case being the mother-in-law and father-in-law. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is serious in nature, hence they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T