Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.40214 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2015 Thana -BARAHIYA District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================
1. Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh Son of Maheshwar Singh Resident of Village - Bakhri, P.S. - Bakhri, District - Begusarai.
2. Smt. Binita Singh Wife of Anil Singh Resident of Village - Bakhri, P.S. - Bakhri, District - Begusarai.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj Kamal, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Smt. Rita Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 06-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
Petitioners apprehend arrest in Barhaiya P.S.Case No.29 of 2015 (G.R.No.199 of 2015) for the offences alleged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the of the IPC.
The prosecution case as is evident is that, deceased, Poonam Devi, daughter of Chandradeep Singh was married to Ajit Singh ten years ago. The marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rituals and informant according to his capacity made expenditure in the marriage. The deceased was regularly tortured in her Sasural. In the meantime, she was also blessed with two kids. When member of her in-laws family did not give her food,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40214 of 2016 (2) dt.06-10-2016 2/3 she used to come to her Maika. On this very issue, when she came to her Maika on 04.06.2014, then her husband, Bhainsur and Gotni came to her Maika on 13.06.2014 and took her to her Sasural after accepting their fault before the villagers. But on 14.06.2014, when informant was informed by his grand daughter that her mother has not yet reached her home, the informant went to daughter's Sasural and found no one present there. He came to know that ritual of Shradha of his deceased daughter was being done by them.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. They are Bhainsur and his wife. It has further been submitted that the police submitted final form wherein it was specifically stated that the victim lady died herself by burning as she had some tiff with her husband who was a drunkard. He also submits that the informant Chandradeep was found to be attending the funeral ceremony of the victim/deceased. It has further been submitted that the Magistrate without any material, after final form, has taken cognizance against the petitioners. It has also been pointed out that complaint case which was later on converted into the present FIR and the complainant/informant has himself stated that the occurrence
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40214 of 2016 (2) dt.06-10-2016 3/3 occurred on 14.06.2014 but the complaint has been lodged on 21.07.2014 and no plausible explanation has been given for such a delay.
However, learned APP for the State submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.
Be that as it may since the prosecution case has been found not true against the petitioners in the final form and without any additional evidence or material cognizance has been taken against these petitioners and that the complaint has been lodged after much delay, let the above named petitioners in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of eight weeks be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Barhaiya P.S.Case No.29 of 2015 (G.R.No.199 of 2015), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Nilu Agrawal, J) B.Kr./- U T