Meera Devi And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.65732 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1871 Year-2016 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ======================================================

1. Meera Devi, W/o Bhagule Ram Sah,

2. Deepak Gupta, Son of Late Bhagule Ram Sah,

3. Kuldeep Gupta @ Kuldeep Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Bhagule Ram Sah,

4. Uttam Gupta @ Uttam Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Bhagule Ram Sah, All resident of Village & P.S.- Rampur Mathura, DistrictSitapur, State- Uttar Pradesh. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Anjali Gupta, Wife of Dilip Kumar Gupta, Daughter of Pramod Sah, Resident of Mohalla- Kashipur, Tajpur Road, Under Town P.S.- Town, DistrictSamastipur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Nagendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 13-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1871 of 2016 for the offence under sections 379, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners are mother-in-law, brothers-in-law respectively. They have been made accused in the instant case by the wife of Deelip Kumar Gupta who is son of petitioner no.1 Meera Devi.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have absolutely no control over the affairs of the husband and wife as the husband

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.65732 of 2018(2) dt.13-12-2018 2/2 of the informant is living separately much before joining of wedlock. The son of the petitioner no.1 joined the wedlock at his own sweet will and on account of difference or dispute between the husband and wife, leading to the present case. Old mother and family members having absolutely no control over the affairs, have been fastened with the criminal liability. They said that they are living separately and as such they deserve consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove and the fact that they have no criminal antecedent, let the petitioners, named above, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1871 of 2016 subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.