Ruby Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.49022 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -6 Year- 2017 Thana -BIRUPUR SAHAYAK District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================
1. Ruby Devi, Wife of Balram Mahto,
2. Preety Devi, daughter of Balram Mahto, Both Resident of VillageSahri, P.S.- Ghoswari, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 31-10-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Birupur P.S. Case No. 6 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered against unknown on the fardbeyan of Chowkidar after recovery of dead body of a woman. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the mother-in-law and married sister-in-law of the deceased. The deceased was married one year ago with the son of petitioner no. 1. The husband of the deceased has already surrendered. There is no allegation of torture against the petitioners. The statement of relatives of the deceased has already
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49022 of 2017 (3) dt.31-10-2017 been taken under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They did not make any specific allegation, but it transpires that the deceased was married to the son of petitioner no. 1 and brother of petitioner no. 2 only a year ago. The deceased was strangulated to death and her dead body was recovered from a distant place covered under earth. It appears that the deceased was killed and her dead body was concealed under the earth.
Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) KKSINHA/- U T