Kabutari Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11980 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -107 Year- 2017 Thana -SISWAN District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Kabutari Devi, Wife of Raj Nath Yadav,

2. Raj Nath Yadav,

3. Ramjee Yadav, Both are sons of Lutawan Yadav,

4. Arjun Yadav, Son of Raj Nath Yadav, all 1 to 4 are residents of villagePurushotam Mura, Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

5. Rinku Devi, Wife of Manoj Yadav, D/o Raj Nath Yadav, Resident of Village- Pakka Gawan, Police Station- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ansarul Haque ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been alleged that victim was married to Umesh Yadav but the relationship does not run smoothly and ultimately allegation has been made to have killed the victim and disappeared her dead body.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband is in jail and petitioners are family members and they have

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11980 of 2018 (3) dt.28-02-2018 been wrongly roped in the present case.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, let petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5, namely, Ramjee Yadav, Arjun Yadav and Rinku Devi, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, X, Siwan in connection with Siswan P.S. Case No.107 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

So far prayer for bail of petitioner nos.1 and 2, namely. Kabutari Devi (mother-in-law) and Raj Nath Yadav (father-inlaw) are concerned, this Court is not inclined to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. Accordingly their prayer for bail is rejected.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U T