Kanti Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.45795 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -128 Year- 2016 Thana -DARIYAPUR District- SARAN ======================================================
1. Kanti Devi wife of Bindeshwar Rajak
2. Lalita Devi D/o Bindeshwar Rajak
3. Rekha Devi Wife of Subodh Rajak All are Resident of Village-Mohan Kodhiya, P.S.-Dariyapur, District-Saran .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-12-2016 Heard both sides.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 128/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The S.H.O., Dariyapur lodged the case against unknown after recovery of burnt dead-body of a female. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the deceased identified the dead-body and alleged that her husband and other in-laws burnt his daughter to death due to nonfulfillment of demand of golden chain (additional dowry). Petitioners are mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the deceased. The deceased herself committed suicide and the entire family
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45795 of 2016 (3) dt.20-12-2016 2/2 members have been implicated in the case. No specific allegation is made against the petitioners who are ladies, but it appears that smell of kerosene oil was coming from the dead-body. The father of deceased identified the dead-body of his daughter and disclosed that the petitioners and other in-laws burnt his daughter to death. Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that there is allegation against the entire family members that they burnt the daughter of the informant and threw her dead-body, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T