Durga Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14131 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -397 Year- 2015 Thana -MADHUBAN District- EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Durga Yadav Son of Late Thakur Rai.

2. Kusum Devi Wife of Durga Yadav Both are resident of Village- Madipur Tola, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashraf Ansari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioners, namely, Durga Yadav and Kusum Devi, apprehend their arrest in Madhuban P.S. Case No. 397/2015 registered under Sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that he married his daughter on 01.06.2015 with Manohar Yadav, son of the petitioners, but immediately after marriage, the petitioners and Mahohar Yadav began to demand dowry. On 31.12.2015 the informant came to know that his daughter was killed and her dead body was disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased was being treated in Gangotri Nursing Home. She was suffering from chest pain and she died of heart attack.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14131 of 2016 (6) dt.13-07-2016 2/2 It appears that the deceased was firstly treated in Sadar Hospital, Motihari but she was not referred to any other hospital. The daughter of the informant died within six months of her marriage and there is specific allegation against the petitioners also that they tortured the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and disposed of her dead body without informing the informant.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in Madhuban P.S. Case No. 397 of 2015. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Dilip/- (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) U T