Mansoor @ Manzoor And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53409 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -70 Year- 2017 Thana -TARABARI District- ARRARIA ======================================================

1. Mansoor @ Manzoor Son of late Sahid

2. Ashmina Wife of Mansoor, Both are Resident of Village- Baturbari Jumman Chowk, Police StationTarabari, District- Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 11-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Tarabari P.S. Case No. 70 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Anjum Ara, the daughter of the informant was married to Md. Sayak the son of the petitioners two years ago and allegedly due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry the F.I.R. accused persons burnt her to death and were trying to cremate the dead body.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioners are old father-in-law and mother-in-law having no concern with the family affairs of the deceased and her husband, they are living separately. The husband is in custody. There is no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53409 of 2017 (4) dt.11-01-2018 2/2 specific allegation against them and, as such, they deserve sympathetic consideration.

The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail by submitting that during investigation all the witnesses have supported the allegations regarding the hands of the petitioners also in the crime and witness Islam has specifically stated the hands of the petitioners and husband in the crime, similarly witnesses Md. Kalam and Md. Murshid have also stated. The learned A.P.P. referred para 33, 34 and 35 of the case diary. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioners serious in nature, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to them and accordingly their such prayer stands rejected in connection with Tarabari P.S. Case No. 70 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth Araria. However, in case and if so advised the petitioner surrender and seek regular bail then their prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T