Vina Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38294 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2020 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

VINA DEVI WIFE OF LAXMI NARAYAN SINGH @ LAXMI NARAYAN PRASAD @ LAXMI NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF RAZA BAZAR LANE IN FRONT OF MURLIDHAR HIGH SCHOOL, P.S. AND DISTRICT- JEHANABAD 2.

SHIVNARAYAN SINGH @ KAIL SINGH @ SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA SON OF LATE SIDHESHWAR SHARMA RESIDENT OF RAZA BAZAR LANE IN FRONT OF MURLIDHAR HIGH SCHOOL, P.S. AND DISTRICT- JEHANABAD ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Santosh Kumar For the opposite parties Mr. Manoj Kumar Mr. Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-10-2021 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 257 of 2020.

It is a case of dowry death. As per the allegations, the accused persons burnt the deceased Neha Kumari to death by using gas cylinder.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38294 of 2020(2) dt.25-10-2021 2/2 petitioner no.1 is mother-in-law and petitioner no.2 is grandfather-in-law of the deceased. They are living separately from the husband of the deceased. They have no connection to dowry demand. It is also submitted that the age of petitioner no.2 is 80 years.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the impugned order itself shows that the deceased in her dying declaration had levelled allegations against the accused persons regarding their involvement in the alleged crime.

In these facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T