Master Rai And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20749 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -119 Year- 2015 Thana -BHELDI District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Master Rai son of Shambhu Rai,

2. Shambhu Rai Son of Late Balak Rai.

3. Mina Devi wife of Shambhu Rai, Both are resident of village- Gagoi, P.S. Bheldi, District- Saran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.M.P.Sinha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-07-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Bheldi P.S. case No. 119 of 2015 under Section 304B/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that his daughter was married to Barrister Rai on 11.06.2015 but after marriage her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law started torturing his daughter on account of non fulfillment of demand of motor cycle and colour television. The informant got information on 21.07.2015 that his daughter was strangulated to death and when the informant went there the accused persons were not present in their house and dead body of his daughter was also not traced.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20749 of 2016 (3) dt.19-07-2016 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are bother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. There is no specific allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioners but from perusal of the case diary it appears that the deceased was killed within one year of her marriage. The informant made allegation that petitioners were also torturing his daughter due to non fulfillment of dowry demand. The dead body of deceased could not be traced out and all the family members are alleged to have disposed of the dead body after killing the deceased.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T