Panna Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17189 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -22 Year- 2016 Thana -BUXAR INDUSTRIAL District- BUXAR ======================================================
1. Panna Devi, Wife of Ram Lal Sah
2. Rinku Devi, Wife of Haridwar Sah, Both resident of Village- Sonversa, P.S. Buxar (Industrial), District Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Bihari Sinha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal, A.P.P. For the Informant: Mr. Rang Nath Choubey, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel appearing for the informant. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Buxar (Ind.) P.S. Case No. 22/2016 registered under Sections 304(B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that his sister Mamta Kumari was married to Chittranjan Sah on 09.05.2015 but her husband and other in-laws were demanding Apache motorcycle. His sister was brutally assaulted and immediately thereafter the informant brought her to his own house. On 13.02.2016, in-laws of Mamta Kumari took her to their house but on 19.02.2016 the informant came to know that his sister was traceless. It is submitted that the petitioners are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17189 of 2016 (4) dt.15-07-2016 2/2 Prior to lodging of this case, Ram Lal Sah (father-in-law of Mamta Kumari) gave an informatory petition to the effect that Mamta Devi had filed a false case against her in-laws and other family members. Ram Lal Sah also informed the parents of Mamta Kumari about this fact and lodged Buxar (Industrial Area) P.S. Case No. 21/16 under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that Mamta Devi fled away from her house with ornaments.
It appears that there is specific allegation that after marriage, Mamta Kumari was physically assaulted by her husband and in-laws. Thereafter, father-in-law of Mamta Kumari lodged an informatory petition alleging that Mamta Kumari fled away from the house with ornaments and she was traceless although there is specific allegation that the petitioners always tortured Mamta Kumari and disposed of her dead body after killing her. Mamta Kumari was killed within eight months of her marriage and her dead body is still traceless.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in Buxar (Ind.) P.S. Case No. 22 of 2016. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T