Mano Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30193 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -25 Year- 2016 Thana -NARDIGANJ District- NAWADA ======================================================
1. Mano Devi, wife of Shivdayal Mahto
2. Shivdayal Mahto, Son of Late Ramdhani Mahto, All residents of VillKahura, P.S. Nardiganj, District- Nawada .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Smt Anuradha Singh, APP 80 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2016 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Nadirganj P.S. Case No. 25 of 2016 under Sections 304B, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The father of the deceased alleged that his daughter, Shanti Devi, was married with Niraj Kumar, son of the petitioners in the month of baisakh, 2015. Immediately thereafter the petitioners and others began to demand rupees one lakh and a chain of gold. He, further, alleged that the accused persons killed his daughter due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and cremated the dead body hurriedly.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased and no specific allegation is made against the petitioner, Mano Devi, just before the death and the victim was rushed to the hospital, but, it appears from the perusal of the first information report and the case diary that the deceased died within nine months of her marriage with the son of the petitioner and the dead body of the deceased was hurriedly cremated without informing
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30193 of 2016 (4) dt.09-11-2016 the parents of the deceased.
Considering the allegation, made against the petitioners, above named, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) SA/- U √ T √