Lalita Devi @ Hansi Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42119 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-402 Year-2018 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur =============================================== ======= 1.
Lalita Devi @ Hansi Devi W/o Prabhoo Paswan Resident of Village- Chak jamal , P.S.- Minapur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. 2.
Ravindra Kumari @ Ravina W/o Raushan Kumar Resident of Village- Yusuforu ladi, P.S.- Gayghat, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s =============================================== ======= Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Bipin Chandra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renu Kumari, A.P.P. =============================================== ======= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in the Virtual Court proceeding.
Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
According to prosecution case, the marriage of the
2/4 informant's daughter was solemnized with Dilip Paswan in the year 2017 and she was regularly subjected to harassment for demand of dowry by the accused persons including the petitioners. On 22.09.2018, his son got information from neighbours that accused persons have caused the death of her daughter and disappeared the dead body. On hearing information, they reached to the in-laws' house and came to know that his daughter was cremated.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners and no specific allegation of assault or demand of dowry in any manner is attributed to these petitioners. He further submits that petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased and that they have no concern at all with the family affairs of the deceased and her husband. He also submits that the husband of the deceased has already been taken into custody, hence the petitioners may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
3/4 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond or Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 402 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and also the following conditions:
1. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
2. If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
3. And further condition that the Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the Court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
4/4 acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) sandeep/- U T