Sumitra Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1645 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -33 Year- 2014 Thana -TISIAUTA District- VAISHALI (HAJIPUR) ======================================================
1. Sumitra Devi Wife of Bindeshwar Pandit
2. Inner Devi D/o Bindeshwar Pandit
3. Bindeshwar Pandit Son of Yogendra Pandit
4. Jagdish Pandit Son of Bindeshwar Pandit All Resident of Village - Loma, (Tara), P.S- Tisiauta, District - Vaishali. .... .... 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 PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-03-2015 Heard both sides.
Petitioner no. 4, Jagdish Pandit, apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 304(B) and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant made allegation that his daughter was married to the petitioner no. 4 in the year 2012 and thereafter her husband and other in-laws started subjecting her to physical and mental torture and ultimately they killed her and disposed off her dead body hurriedly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 4 is the husband of the deceased. Other accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail. The wife of the petitioner no. 4 died as she was suffering from jaundice. The
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1645 of 2015 (4) dt.10-03-2015 2/2 informant has also compromised the case and disclosed the fact that later on he came to know that his daughter died of illness. On perusal of the record, it appears that the informant made a specific allegation that within two years of marriage of his daughter, his daughter was done to death by her husband and other in-laws. During the course of investigation, almost all the witnesses have stated the same fact. The petitioner no. 4 is the husband of the deceased.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in Tisiauta P.S. Case No. 33/14, arising out of Complaint Case No. 901 of 2014. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T