Sujkala Devi @ Suryakala Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11475 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-447 Year-2017 Thana- KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.

SUJKALA DEVI @ SURYAKALA DEVI, Wife of Late Shanti Lal Singh @ Shanti Lal Pd. Singh. Resident of Village- Khankitta, P.S.- Sabour. distBhagalpur 2.

Suman Kumar @ Lolo @ Lalo, Son of Shanti Lal Singh @ Shanti Lal Pd. Singh. Resident of Village- Khankitta, P.S.- Sabour.dist-Bhagalpur 3.

Yogendra Prasad Singh @ Yogendra Singh, Son of Late Ajab Lal Singh Resident of Village- Khankitta, P.S.- Sabour.dist-Bhagalpur 4.

Swati Kumari, D/O Shambhu Nath Shambhu @ Shambhu Singh. Resident of Village- Tarbanna, P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal. dist-Khagaria ... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Kumari Maidam, Daughter of Vidhyanand Singh, Resident of Village and Post - Nawada, P.S.- Choutham, District Khagaria. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Indeshwari Prasad Mandal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2019 Petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 447(c) of 2017 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioners happen to be mother-in-law, Debar, cousin father-in-law and Bhagni (daughter of Nanad) of the complainant and the case is under Section 498A IPC with respect to demand.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11475 of 2019(4) dt.10-07-2019 2/2 Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the whole family members have been made accused in this case and no specific allegation has been attributed against any of them.

Heard learned APP and learned counsel for opposite party No.2, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that they are the instrumental in the present case. However, he failed to show any specific allegation against any of the petitioners.

In view of above facts and circumstances, this application is allowed. The provisional bail granted to the petitioners vide order of this Court dated 26.2.2019 is confirmed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T