Ram Ekbal Das And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38554 of 2015 (3) dt.18-01-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38554 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -125 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHNAR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Ram Ekbal Das Son of Late Rohin Das

2. Prahlad Kumar Son of Ram Ekbal Das

3. Inarwa Devi @ Irwa Devi Wife of Ram Ekbal Das Resident of Village - Garigama, P.S.- Mahnar in the District of Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushant Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sucheta Yadav(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Mahanar P.S. Case No. 125 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201/34 the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is an old man aged about 70 years, petitioner no. 2 is the Dewar and petitioner no. 3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased.

Considering the fact that petitioner no.1 is an old man aged about 70 years and there is no specific allegation against

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38554 of 2015 (3) dt.18-01-2016 petitioner no. 1, let the petitioner no. 1, namely, Ram Ekbal Das in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur (Vaishali) in connection with Mahanar P.S. Case No. 125 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

So far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the allegation against them is that they alongwith husband of the deceased killed her and thrown her into the river soon after her death.

In view of such facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is rejected.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T