Saraswati Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47609 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -357 Year- 2016 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ======================================================
1. Saraswati Devi wife of Jag Narayan Keshri
2. Dipu Devi wife of Sujeet Kumar alias Pappu Keshri
3. Pinki Devi wife of Ramji Keshri
4. Ramji Keshri son of Baijnath Keshri
5. Neha Kumari daughter of Ramji Keshri All residents of Madhubani Churipatti, Police Station K. Hat, District Purnia at present residing at Ward No. 2, Police Station K. Hat, District Purnia.
6. Munna Devi @ Rina Devi wife of Sanjay Keshri
7. Sanjay Keshri son of late Badri Keshri Both residents of Mohalla Danapur, Police Station Danapur, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Bidhu Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sir Pawan Kumar Chaurasiya For informant : Mr. Saroj Kr. Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in connection with K. Hat P.S. case no. 357 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 submitted that she has already been arrested, as such, he may be permitted to withdraw the bail application against petitioner no. 2. So far petitioner nos. 1 and 3 to 7 are concerned, it has
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47609 of 2016 (6) dt.11-01-2017 2/2 been submitted that though the allegation against the petitioners is under Section 304B but the allegation is omnibus in nature and the whole family member of the petitioner has been made accused in this case.
Heard learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for informant also. Learned counsel for informant has stated that from para 29 of the case diary, involvement of petitioner no. 1 transpires and post mortem shows that death is due to asphyxia.
Having heard both sides. In view of the fact that there is no specific allegation against petitioner nos. 3 to 7, anticipatory bail against them is allowed and they are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia in connection with K. Hat P.S. case no. 357 of 2016. So far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, his anticipatory bail is dismissed and he is directed to surrender before the court below for regular bail and the court below will dispose of the matter on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J.) rinkee/- U T