Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29453/2016rejected

Bhola Dom And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-06Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29453 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -16 Year- 2016 Thana -MAJHAULIA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Bhola Dom Son of Late Nathuni Dom,

2. Godawari Devi Wife of Bhola Dom, both resident of Village-Jokatiya Naie Dih, P.S.- Majhouliya, District-West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 06-09-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Majhauliya P.S. case no. 16 of 2016 registered under Sections 304(B)/34 of the IPC.

The petitioners herein are father-in-law and motherin-law respectively of the deceased. Only recently the husband of the deceased had brought the deceased to matrimonial home after 'gouna'. Right from the day she entered the matrimonial home, it is alleged, she was tortured by the family members on account of non fulfillment of the demand of dowry which includes the motorcycle. It is alleged that the victim was done to death in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29453 of 2016 (2) dt.06-09-2016 2/2 matrimonial home inasmuch as the body was disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only on mere suspicion, the allegation has been levelled. The parents are living separately. No source of information with regard to the killing of the deceased has been disclosed. The witnesses have not supported fully the prosecution case.

From the impugned order, it appears that in course of investigation, the witnesses have supported the prosecution case that the victim was being subjected to torture before her death. Looking to the seriousness of the allegations and the other facts appearing from the record, including the impugned order, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Rejected.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U T