Dev Kumari Devi And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1956 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1247 Year-2016 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai ======================================================
1. Dev Kumari Devi wife of Ram Jatan Rai,
2. Sangita Devi wife of Amarjit Rai
3. Ram Jatan Rai, son of late Baban Ray, all 1 to 3 resident of village Anandpur, P.S. Tajpur, District Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Pratima Kumari, wife of Sanjit Rai, R/o village Anandpur, Morwagadh, P.S. Tajpur, District Samastipur, presently daughter of Vishnudeo Mahto, resident of village Narepur Bachwara, P.S.-Bachwara, District-Begusarai. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate For the Complainant : Mr. Sandip Kr. Goutam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2019 Heard both sides.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Complaint Case No.1247C of 2016 registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant alleged that the petitioners and others including her husband subjected to her physical and mental torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. No specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture has been made against the petitioners. The petitioners
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1956 of 2019(2) dt.15-01-2019 2/3 have no manner of concern with the family affairs of the complainant and her husband. The husband of the complainant filed matrimonial suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The complainant also filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for her maintenance against her husband.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that from perusal of order of learned Sessions Judge, it would appear that the matter was taken up for negotiation and the petitioners had agreed to pay Rs.7 lacs for resolution of dispute between the husband and wife. It is submitted that after accepting the compromise petition of the settlement, the petitioners backed out and, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. It appears that the petitioners are mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. The complainant and her husband are litigating with each other. The petitioners are not bound to give any money for settlement of dispute.
Taking into consideration the facts and the nature of allegations made against the petitioners and the fact that the petitioners are in-laws of the complainant, the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1956 of 2019(2) dt.15-01-2019 3/3 learned court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Complaint Case No.1247C of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438
(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T