Ajay Thakur And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8044 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -452 Year- 2015 Thana -SONEPUR District- SARAN ======================================================
1. Ajay Thakur S/o Sachita Nand Thakur
2. Manu Thakur S/o Sachita Nand Thakur
3. Khekhari Devi W/o Sachita Nand Thakur
4. Rinki Devi @ Rinku Devi W/o Ranjeet Thakur All are R/o Vill. - Damodarpur, P.S. - Sonpur, Distt. - Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Chandra Singh(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 24-02-2016 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.2, Manu Thakur has already been arrested, as such, his application for grant of anticipatory bail has become infructuous. His application for grant of anticipatory bail is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. P.P. for the State.
Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 452 of 2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that daughter of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8044 of 2016 (2) dt.24-02-2016 2/3 informant, Kushum Devi was married to Umesh Thakur, the son of petitioner no.3, on 05.05.2011 and allegedly due to nonfulfilment of demand of dowry i.e. motorcycle, gold chain and LED T.V., she was killed by her husband and in-laws including the petitioners and her dead body is also traceless. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is Bhaisur, petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law and petitioner no.4 is cousin Gotani of the deceased. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated as they are living separately and have no concern with the deceased and her husband.
It has further been submitted that the allegation of demand of dowry is general and omnibus and there is no specific allegation against anyone, as such, petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration for grant of bail in the event of arrest. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that husband of the deceased has been taken into custody. It has been submitted that the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted the privilege of bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court under order dated 19.02.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5916 of 2016. The allegation being similar, I do not propose to take a different view in the matter.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8044 of 2016 (2) dt.24-02-2016 3/3 However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioners are named in the First Information Report and opposes the prayer for bail.
Under such circumstances, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 452 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr. P.C. (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- U T