Sarita Devi @ Sangita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57697 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2021 Thana- SAKURABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

Sarita Devi @ Sangita Devi Wife Of Ram Babu Yadav R/V- Shree Bigha, P.S- Shakurabad, Dist- Jehanabad 2.

Premchand Yadav Son Of Shiya Sharan Yadav R/V- Uchita, P.SShakurabad, Dist- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-01-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable u/s 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, the petitioner and co-accused person are alleged to have killed the daughter of the informant and disappeared her dead body due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57697 of 2022(3) dt.30-01-2023 2/2 bail petition. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the informant has stated in his cross-examination that no dowry was demanded from the in-laws of the deceased and she never complained anything against her in-laws and he has also stated that her daughter died of chest pain during the course of treatment.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material available against the petitioners, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court Concerned, Jehanabad in connection with Shakurabad P.S. Case No. 29 of 2021, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T