Shantee Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10363 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2020 Thana- GAUTAMBUDHNAGAR District- Siwan ====================================================== 1.

SHANTEE DEVI WIFE OF BASISTH SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGEBUDHI CHAPRA POLICE STATION-GB NAGAR DISTRICT-SIWAN 2.

BASISTH SINGH SON OF LATE BINDESHWARI SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BUDHI CHAPRA POLICE STATION-GB NAGAR DISTRICT-SIWAN ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raghav Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-03-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with G.B. Nagar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per allegation, the accused persons subjected Ranjeeta Devi (deceased) to torture for non-fulfillment of rupees one lac cash and a golden chain. The further allegation is that they strangulated Ranjeeta Devi to death and stealthily cremated dead body. The informant received information from the villagers on 08.08.2020, and when she rushed to the matrimonial house of the deceased, no one

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10363 of 2021(5) dt.21-03-2022 2/2 was there and the door was found locked. There, she was apprised by the villagers that the matrimonial inmates were torturing the deceased prior to two days of the death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. He has also submitted that there is no explanation of delay of four days in lodging the FIR.

There is specific allegation against the petitioners that being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, they subjected the deceased to atrocities for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The witnesses in paragraph Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of the case diary have also supported the alleged occurrence and the name of the the petitioners have also been figured in the statement of these witnesses. Considering the above-mentioned facts, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T