Kamendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36428 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2020 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Phuleshwari Devi Wife of Kamendra Ram Resident of Village Barap P.S. Charpokhari, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2021 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Charpokhari P.S. Case No.54 of 2020 registered under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, mother of the deceased, alleged that her daughter was married with Pramod Kumar Ram about seven years ago but after marriage, her son-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law(the petitioner) were subjecting her to torture. On 08.04.2020, the informant came to know that her daughter was killed and her dead body was hurriedly cremated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deceased died leaving behind two sons, one is ten years old and another is three years old. No offence under Section 304B is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36428 of 2020(3) dt.24-06-2021 2/2 made out. Petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased. During the course of investigation, the police did not find the involvement of Binod Ram, Usha Devi and Phaguni Ram in the murder of the daughter of the informant. The informant herself filed a petition that she lodged the case in hurry but her daughter died of illness but it appears from perusal of the record and the case diary that besides the informant, other witnesses have categorically stated that Binod Ram took the thumb impression of the informant on a plain paper on the pretext of getting the dead body but the accused persons took the dead body from the hospital and hurriedly cremated the same. The witnesses disclosed that the petitioner and other accused persons were subjecting torture to the daughter of the informant and they killed her.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T