Subhawati Devi @ Sugmati Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29417 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -8 Year- 2016 Thana -MATIARIA District- WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Subhawati Devi @ Sugmati Devi wife of Ramprit Ram

2. Ramprit Ram son of Late Manu Ram

3. Mukesh Ram son of Ramprit Ram

4. Munna Kumar @ Munna Ram son of Ramprit Ram All are resident of Village- Sonbarsha, Police Station- Matiyariya, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.-7 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.Dayal,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 05-09-2016 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Dayal APP for the State.

The four petitioners herein are mother-in-law, fatherin-law and two dewars respectively of the victim. They along with the husband of the victim are facing prosecution under Sections 304(B),201/34 of the IPC.

The brother-in-law of the victim lodged the case that in 2012 the victim was married to the son of petitioner nos. 1 and

2. Right from the day of marriage, there was a demand for dowry and in non fulfillment thereof, physical torture on the victim inasmuch she was ousted from the matrimonial home. Only one

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29417 of 2016 (2) dt.05-09-2016 2/2 month before the occurrence the husband had brought her back to the matrimonial home. On 16.3.2016 when the informant went to the 'Sasural' of the victim she was found traceless. It has been alleged that on non fulfillment of demand of dowry, she has been done to death under mysterious circumstance at the 'Sasural'. Contention of the petitioners is that in course of investigation few witnesses have stated about separation between the husband of the victim and other family members. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are fairly aged. No one has actually seen the commission of crime.

Learned APP opposed the prayer and submits that there is specific allegation in the FIR against the accused persons. The body of the victim was not presented before the informant and/or no information about her missing was given. Considering the gravity of the allegation as well as other facts evidencing from record, I am not persuaded to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Rejected.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U T