Raj Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16284 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2024 Thana- Dehri Mufassil District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Raj Kumar Sah S/o- Bishwanath Sah Village- Pahleja P.S- Dehri Mufassil, District- Rohtas 2.
Sadhana Devi W/o- Raj Kumar Sah Village- Pahleja P.S- Dehri Mufassil, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2025 1.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
2.
The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Dehri (M) Police Station Case No. 73 of 2024 dated 10.05.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 09.05.2024 at about 9.45 pm, informant's son Deepak Kumar received information from village Pahleja that the daughter of the informant has hanged herself in her
2/4 matrimonial home. When the informant along with her son and other villagers reached the sasural of her daughter, she saw her daughter hanging from the hook of the fan. It has further been alleged that when the son of the informant went to meet the deceased on the same date at 12 O' clock, the in-laws of the deceased abused him and did not allow him to meet the deceased. It has also been alleged that soon after the marriage in the year 2021, the husband of the deceased along with other family members used to torture the deceased for dowry, due to which, the deceased was in tension and committed suicide. 4.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. He further submits that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. He further submits that the petitioners are separate in mess and property and they have no concern with the day to day life of the deceased and/or her husband. He also submits that the husband of the deceased is behind bars. The petitioners are languishing in custody since 29.10.2024.
5.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that within seven years of marriage, the
3/4 deceased was killed by the petitioners along with others for demand of dowry.
6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record including the impugned order.
7.
Within seven years of marriage, the informant's daughter died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The nature of death is not important whether it is natural, suicidal or accidental but the fact of the matter is that deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Allegation in the F.I.R. is that petitioners along with others used to demand dowry and due to non-payment of the same, tortured and threatened the deceased. There is a presumption against the accused persons under Section 113(A) and 113(B) of the Evidence Act. The offence is serious in nature and the punishment thereof, is also severe. The mother-in-law and father-in-law are supposed to be the responsible members of the family.
8.
Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and hence the present application is dismissed.
9.
However, the petitioners are at liberty to renew
4/4 their prayer for bail after completion of six months from today, if the trial does not show any progress.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) rinkee/- U T