Id Mahammad @ Id Mohammad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43661 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2022 Thana- MAKER District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

ID MAHAMMAD @ ID MOHAMMAD son of Late Ibrahim Miya VillagePachhim Thahara Ps- Maker Dist- Saran at Chapra 2.

Tasrifan Khatoon wife of Id Mohammad Village- Pachhim Thahara PsMaker Dist- Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP For the Informant :

Mr.Jeetendra Narayan, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 18-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. 2.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Maker P.S. Case No.310/2022, registered for the offence punishable u/s 341, 323, 304(B), 34 of the IPC. 3.

Allegedly, the daughter of the informant has been killed by the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioners for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case due to grudge. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43661 of 2023(2) dt.18-08-2023 2/2 Petitioners are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased and there is general and omnibus allegation against them. Petitioners have never made any dowry demand nor have tormented her over the same. Husband of the deceased has also filed an anticipatory bail application in the Court below, which is pending till date. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the marriage of the daughter of the informant and son of the informant was solemnised on 20.08.2022 and the daughter of the informant was killed on 29.12.2022 i.e. within four months of marriage. There is specific allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegation and that the daughter of the informant has been killed within four months of marriage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

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