Ramanand Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25883 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-584 Year-2020 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

RAMANAND MAHTO Son of Late Sukdeo Resident of Village - Saraiya Nirpur Kachhari Tola, Police Station - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur. 2.

Sudama Devi Wife of Ramanand Mahto Resident of Village - Saraiya Nirpur Kachhari Tola, Police Station - Sahebganj, District - Muzaffarpur. 3.

Jagdish Mahto Son of Rameshwar Mahto @ Mangani Mahto Resident of Village - Shri Rampur, Police Station - Baruraj, District - Muzaffarpur. 4.

Sushila Devi @ Shoshila Devi W/O Jagdish Mahto Resident of Village - Shri Rampur, Police Station - Baruraj, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Upendra Kumar Chaubey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 28-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Sahabganj P.S. Case no. 584 of 2020 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, petitioners along with their family members have tortured in various ways to the pregnant daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment dowry

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25883 of 2021(6) dt.28-06-2022 2/3 demand and ultimately they killed by setting her on fire. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1 and 2 are parents-in-law and petitioner no. 3 and 4 are distant relative of husband of the deceased. They have been falsely implicated in this case. They have never demanded any thing from the deceased. They have no concern with the daily activity of the deceased and her husband. They are living separately. The sole responsibility to take care of wife is upon husband and not against his family members. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the deceased is languishing in judicial custody.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with Sahabganj P.S. Case no. 584 of 2020, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25883 of 2021(6) dt.28-06-2022 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM 1st, West Muzaffarpur subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U