Lakhendra Giri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45319 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-386 Year-2019 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

LAKHENDRA GIRI Son of Parikshan Giri Resident of Village- Minapur, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur..

2.

BHAGMANI DEVI W/o- LAKHENDRA GIRI Resident of VillageMinapur, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amit Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Alok ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-04-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 386 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation, the informant's daughter Kavita Devi (deceased) was married to Ritesh Kumar, the son of the petitioners in the year 2019. The petitioner and in-laws were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/-. They pressurized the deceased for fulfillment of the demand. On 18.07.2019, also the present petitioners demanded money on the phone call. In the night of the same day the informant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45319 of 2021(2) dt.13-04-2022 2/2 came to know that his daughter was done to death. He rushed to the matrimonial house of the deceased. He saw her dead body. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased having no concern with demand of the dowry. He has also submitted that the husband, Ritesh Kumar, is in custody and other co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The FIR shows itself that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that on the day of occurrence itself they demanded money from the deceased of Rs. 1,00,000/- cash and soon thereafter, the informant got information about the death of the deceased.

In such circumstances, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T