Md. Sabir And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.44151 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -82 Year- 2016 Thana -MANIYARI District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Md. Sabir, S/o Md. Rizwan.

2. Md. Mintu @ Mintu Mian, S/o Md. Rizwan.

3. Md. Alam @ Alam Mian, S/o Md. Rizwan.

4. Md. Salman @ Salman Mian, S/o Md. Rizwan.

5. Rani Khatoon, W/o Md. Amar.

6. Md. Tanweer @ Tanweer Mian @ Tanveer Mian, S/o Md. Rizwan. All except petitioner no 5 resident of Village- Rathauli (Mithepur), P.S.- Maniasi, District- Muzaffarpur.

Petitioner no.5, resident of Village- Sujawalpur, P.S.- Sakra, DistrictMuzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ----------- 15-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Maniari P.S. Case No.82 of 2016 registered under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation of the informant Md. Yunus is that he received information on his mobile that his daughter has been killed. Thereafter, he went to Ratnauli (Mithepur) and found the dead body of his daughter Hina Khatoon in burnt condition near

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44151 of 2016 (3) dt.15-12-2016 2/3 the latrine tank. He had performed the marriage of his daughter of on 11.05.2015 according to Muslim customs after giving proper gift. Eight days before the occurrence, the in-laws of his daughter had made demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for doing the business giving threatening to her that if the demand is not fulfilled, then she would be killed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is married brother-in-law and petitioner nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 are unmarried brothers-in-law whereas petitioner no.5 is married sister-in-law of the deceased, the daughter of the informant. Further submission is that petitioner nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 used to reside at Delhi for their livelihood whereas petitioner no.5 used to reside at her Sasural but they have falsely been implicated in this case with an ulterior motive by the informant. It is further submitted that Rukhsana Khatoon, the cousin sister of the deceased and Md. Karimullah, the brother-inlaw (Sahroo) of the informant, have clearly stated in their statements, as detailed in paragraphs-9 and 10 of the case diary, that on the date of occurrence only the father-in-law, mother-inlaw and Ginni Khatoon, the divorced sister-in-law of the deceased were present in the house. The petitioner nos.1 to 4 and 6 were at Delhi in connection with their job. The informant in his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44151 of 2016 (3) dt.15-12-2016 3/3 restatement has also stated that his son-in-law Md. Jakir used to reside alongwith his brothers at Delhi in connection with their livelihood.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender by them within six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Mukesh Kumar Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Maniari P.S. Case No.82 of 2016, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T