Subhadra Kuer v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14118 of 2015 (3) dt.25-06-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14118 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -152 Year- 2014 Thana -JALALPUR DistrictSARAN ====================================================== Subhadra Kuer wife of Late Baijnath Pandey, Resident of village- Ganga Kanhauli, P.S.- Jalalpur, District- Chapra (Saran) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Jalalpur P.S. Case No. 152/2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 304(B) and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that his daughter was subjected to mental and physical torture for demand of dowry. He did not fulfill the demand. His son-in-law abused his daughter to go to the house of her in-laws and thereafter the informant allowed her to go to her in-laws, but immediately thereafter the informant got information about illness of his daughter and found that his daughter was strangulated. The petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased and she is 80 years old. There is no specific allegation of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14118 of 2015 (3) dt.25-06-2015 torture against the petitioner. The husband was not found at the place of occurrence.

It appears that the daughter of the informant was strangulated. There is allegation against the petitioner that she was also torturing her daughter-in-law. From the post-mortem report it appears that there was a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased and only petitioner was living with the deceased at the time of occurrence.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

However, the petitioner, if so advised, may surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pray for regular bail and his prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi/- U T