Manju Devi @ Manju Kuwar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29621 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2016 Thana -SIDHWALIA District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Manju Devi @ Manju Kuwar Wife of Late Chhotelal Prasad resident of village - Bazar Khajuriya, Police Station Sidhwalia, District - Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Sidhwalia P.S. Case No. 30/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that his daughter was married with Dipak Kumar in the month of April, 2014. Dipak Kumar went to foreign country to earn his livelihood. Mother-in-law and other in-laws of the deceased were subjecting her to physical and mental torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On 14.04.2016 the informant got information that at the instance of Dipak Kumar Manju Devi the petitioner and her sons burnt his daughter to death.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29621 of 2016 (3) dt.27-09-2016 2/2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner burnt her daughter-in-law to death. The witnesses also stated that while the deceased was cooking food she got accidental fire and died. Petitioner and others made all efforts to save the life of the deceased, but while she was being taken to Gorakhpur hospital she succumbed to her burn injuries. On the other hand learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

It appears that the petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased died due to severe burn injuries. The husband of the deceased had gone to foreign country to earn his livelihood and the deceased was living with the petitioner. Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner was torturing the deceased due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T