Bindu Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38871 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2019 Thana- DURAULI District- Siwan ====================================================== 1.

BINDU DEVI W/o Janak Rajbhar Resident of Village - Gorwar, P.S.- Darauli, Distt.- Siwan.

2.

Sima Devi W/o Rajendra Rajbhar Resident of Village - Gorwar, P.S.- Darauli, Distt.- Siwan.

3.

Priti Devi W/o Birbal Rajbhar Resident of Village - Gorwar, P.S.- Darauli, Distt.- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Udbhav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-11-2022 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Darauli P.S. Case No.186 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners, husband of the deceased, alongwith other in-laws are said to have killed the sister of the informant for non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry by pressing her neck.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38871 of 2022(3) dt.21-11-2022 2/2 present case. The petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the allegations are not specific rather they are general and omnibus in nature. It is submitted that the petitioners have no manner of concern with the family affairs of the deceased and her husband. It is submitted that no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioners.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Sanjay/- U T