Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29176/2016rejected

Brahil Ravidas And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2016-08-29Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29176 of 2016 (3) dt.29-08-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29176 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -79 Year- 2014 Thana -SONO District- JAMUI ======================================================

1. Brahil Ravidas Son of Bansi Ravidas

2. Kiran Devi Wife of Brahil Ravidas Both Resident of VillageBhagwana, P.S. Sono,(Charkapather), District Jamui. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Dinesh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 29-08-2016 Heard counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Singh, learned APP for the State.

Petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the victim. The mother of the victim lodged the case alleging that her daughter was married to the son of the petitioners only two years ago whereafter they started perpetrating cruelty on her owing to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. She had visited her house only to find that the petitioners and her husband were engaged in abusing the deceased. Subsequently, her daughter was done to death in the mysterious circumstance while she was in Sasural inasmuch as the dead body was disposed of stealthily.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29176 of 2016 (3) dt.29-08-2016 Contention of the petitioners is that they are separate from the son. The unmarried Nanad has since been released on anticipatory bail. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. Learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that the occurrence has taken place within two years of marriage. There is allegation of demand of dowry and on failure torture on the victim. Under the law the presumption is that they have committed the offence.

Looking to the gravity of the charge and other materials reflected from the record, I am not inclined to extend them to release on anticipatory bail. Prayer is refused. The petitioners may surrender and pray for regular bail before the court below, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) B.Kr./- U T