Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49021/2016dismissed

Raghuni Das And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-19Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49021 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -21 Year- 2016 Thana -CHAKAMHESI District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Raghuni Das, son of late Saryug Das.

2. Dahuri Devi @ Dahauri Devi, Wife of Raghuni Das, Both resident of Village- Shairdpur Tola- Takiya Police Station Chakmehsi, DistrictSamastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shailendra Kumar -1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2017 Heard the parties on the application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners in connection with Chakmehsi P.S.Case No.21 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is father-in-law and the petitioner no.2 is motherin-law of the deceased and they remain always ill and they have no concern with the family affairs of the deceased or husband of the deceased but they have been made accused in this case only on the ground that they are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.

It is further submitted that the witnesses, during the course of investigation, have stated that a dispute arose in between the husband and wife, due to which; she has taken poison and committed suicide and thereafter, her dead-body was disposed of. The petitioner is in custody for about four months. Heard learned A.P.P. also, who opposes the prayer for bail stating that the informant in the F.I.R. as well as in the police statement, has stated that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased and thereafter, her dead-body was disposed of in a hurry by them without any information to the family members of the deceased. As such, the petitioners do not deserve bail. Having heard both sides. Considering the allegations as made in the F.I.R. as well as the police statement, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, however, the petitioners may renew prayer for bail after framing of charges in this case.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/-