Sheikh Amamul @ S. K. Amamul v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9114 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-606 Year-2024 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Sheikh Amamul @ S. K. Amamul S/o Sheikh Alihar @ S.K. Alihar R/o Vill.- Pakari, P.S.- Manjhaulia, Dist- West Champaran 2.
Sahnaz Khatoon W/o Sheikh Amamul @ S.K. Amamul R/o Vill.- Pakari, P.S.- Manjhaulia, Dist- West Champaran 3.
Faiyaz Alam S/o Sheikh Amamul @ S.K Amamul R/o Vill.- Pakari, P.S.- Manjhaulia, Dist- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Jainendra Kumar Pushkar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, APP.
For the Informant :
Ms. Priti Kumari, Advocate.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025 Heard Mr. Jainendra Kumar Pushkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State and Ms. Priti Kumari, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Manjhaulia P.S. Case No. 606 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103 (2), 80, 61(2)(a) of the BNS, 2023.
3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., the accused persons including the petitioners used to torture the daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is
2/4 alleged that petitioners who are father-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (bhaisur) of the deceased with a common intention committed murder of the daughter of the informant (daughter-in-law of petitioner nos. 1 & 2 ) by hatching conspiracy.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have no concern with the matrimonial relationship of the deceased and her husband who is son of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 and petitioner no.3 who is elder brother of the husband of the deceased was residing in Delhi separately at the time of alleged commission of murder and he was not present at the place of occurrence and the deceased by residing in her matrimonial home. The allegation that the son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (own brother of petitioner no.3 and husband of the deceased) has committed murder after entering into the house of the informant becomes suspicious, as in fact, alleged murder took place in the house of the informant which creates doubt, as such, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail.
5. Ms. Priti Kumari, learned counsel has tendered her appearance on behalf of the informant and has submitted that all the accused persons including the petitioners with a common
3/4 intention have committed murder of the daughter of the informant. Even before commission of murder earlier also, dowry case has been lodged against the entire family members including the petitioners.
6. Learned APP for the State has supported the submission made on behalf of the informant.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and the fact that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased with a common intention hatched conspiracy to commit murder of the daughter of the informant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on pre-arrest bail.
8. So far as petitioner no.3 is concerned, in view of general and omnibus allegation and also considering the information given by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that he was living separately at the time of alleged commission of murder, I find that the petitioner no.3 has made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
9. The petitioner no.3, namely, Faiyaz Alam, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
4/4 (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Betttiah / Concerned Court in connection with Manjhaulia P.S. Case No. 606 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
10. The District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no.3 and if it is found that the petitioner no.3 is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para-3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically lose its force.
11. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T