Sanjari Khatoon And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1447 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-551 Year-2017 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia ======================================================

1. Sanjari Khatoon, Wife of Md. Safo Ansari @ Md. Safiq Alam.

2. Parbej, Son of Gholtu.

3. Kutaniya Khatoon @ Noor Saba Khatoon, D/o- Safo Ansari @ Md. Safiq Alam.

4. Mohasin @ Mosim, Son of Safo Snsari @ Safiq Alam. All Resident of Village- Aga Tola Chandi, P.S.-Muffasil (Rani Patra), District- Purnea.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI MADHURANAND JHA ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-01-2018 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and State. The petitioners being the mother, brother-in-law (Bahnoi), married sister and brother of the husband of the victim are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, as per the written report of Sakila Khatoon is to the effect that the daughter of the informant, Asmina Khatoon was married with Buddhu @ Naushad seven years prior to the lodging of the present case. After marriage, all the accused persons including the petitioners started demanding Rs. One lac as additional dowry. On 10.07.2017, at about 7 AM, the husband of the victim, Buddhu @ Naushad took the victim

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1447 of 2018(2) dt.11-01-2018 2/3 along with her minor daughter from the house of the informant on an auto rickshaw, but he did not return, thereafter, the informant went to the house of the husband of the victim, but found the victim and her minor child missing, concerning which the accused persons did not give any satisfactory reply, upon which the informant suspected that all the accused persons have killed the victim and her minor child. Subsequently, a decomposed dead body was recovered by the investigating agency.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the thrust of accusation is against the husband of the victim, who is in custody. The accusation against the petitioners is omnibus and general. The father of the husband of the victim filed Miscellaneous Case No. 989 of 2008 on 26.06.2008 and Misc. Petition No. 446 of 2006 against his son, which suggests that the petitioners are separate from the husband of the victim. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Considering the fact that thrust of accusation is against the husband of the victim, who is in custody, let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned Court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1447 of 2018(2) dt.11-01-2018 3/3 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Purnea in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 551 of 2017, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Amrendra/- U T