Anil Das And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41761 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -301 Year- 2014 Thana -AMARPUR District- BANKA ======================================================

1. Anil Das, s/o late Sahdev Das.

2. Santi Das, w/o Anil Das, all r/v Simarpur, P.S. Amerpur, District-Banka .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyama Nand Thakur, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gajendra Pd.Yadav(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-11-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Amarpur P.S. Case No. 301/2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The father of the deceased alleged that his daughter Suman Devi was married to Ranjit Das, son of the petitioners in the month of May to June, 2014. Her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were torturing her and demanding an auto-rickshaw and Rs. 20,000/-. Her husband took his daughter on 9th day of Durga Puja to his house, but immediately thereafter his daughter was brutally assaulted and killed. Her dead body was thrown in Simarpur Bahiyar.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41761 of 2015 (3) dt.10-11-2015 2/2 The petitioners are daily wagers. They have no manner of concern with his son and daughter-in-law.

From perusal of the FIR and the case-diary, it appears that within 4-5 months of marriage of the daughter of the informant, she was killed and her dead body was thrown in Simarpur Bahiyar. There is specific allegation that the petitioners were also torturing the deceased. During course of investigation, the witnesses have reiterated the same facts. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T