Chhotaki Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82623 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2023 Thana- NADI District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.
Tej Narayan Yadav Son of Late Thakko Yadav @ Thako Yadav @ Thakay Yadav Resident of Village - Ghoghararia, P.S. - Supaul Nadi, District - Supaul 2.
Gulab Deni @ Gulab Devi @ Radh Devi Wife of Tej Narayan Yadav Resident of Village - Ghoghararia, P.S. - Supaul Nadi, District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 82929 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2023 Thana- NADI District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.
Chhotaki Kumari Daughter of Tej Narayan Yadav Resident of Village - Ghoghararia, P.S. - Supaul Nadi, District - Supaul 2.
Surji Kumari Daughter of Tej Narayan Yadav Resident of Village - Ghoghararia, P.S. - Supaul Nadi, District - Supaul 3.
Bandan Kumar @ Abhinandan Kumar Son of Tej Narayan Yadav Resident of Village - Ghoghararia, P.S. - Supaul Nadi, District - Supaul 4.
Sudhir Kumar Yadav Son of Mohan Yadav @ Sudhir kumar Resident of Village - Ghoghararia, P.S. - Supaul Nadi, District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 82623 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amar Nath Yadav, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP.
For the Informant :
Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Adv.
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 82929 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amar Nath Yadav, Adv.
For the State :
Md. Aslam Ansari, APP.
For the Informant :
Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APPs for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2/4
2. Earlier vide order dated 19.03.2025, the application against Tej Narayan Yadav in Cr. Misc. No. 82623 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn.
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the application in respect of petitioner Gulab Devi in Cr. Misc. No. 82623 of 2024.
4. Permission is granted.
5. Accordingly, the application (Cr. Misc. No. 82623 of 2024) is dismissed as withdrawn.
6. The petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 82929 of 2024 apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 328, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of D.P. Act, 1961.
7. The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR is that one Gulab Devi, the mother-in-law of the deceased, had herself telephonically informed the informant on 14.12.2023 at 03:00 PM that her daughter had consumed poison and has also stated that she was taken to the hospital for treatment. It is further alleged that when the informant reached the hospital, she found her daughter dead on the hospital bed and subsequently, the accused persons including the petitioners, who were there in hospital, left the deceased and fled away.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
3/4 petitioners are the sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law of the deceased. The FIR discloses that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners, but it is submitted that it would be clear from bare perusal of the FIR itself that it was the mother-in-law, namely, Gulab Devi, who had informed the informant about the fact that her daughter had consumed poison. It is further submitted that had there been any ill intention on the part of the accused persons and had they been anywhere responsible for the death of the deceased, they would not have informed the informant and would have rather tried to cause disappearance of evidence which is not a fact in the present case.
Learned counsel further submits that one of the sisters-inlaw is married and all the petitioners are separate in mess and they have no connection with the daily affairs of the deceased and her husband. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the husband of the deceased, namely, Chandan Yadav has already been granted the privilege of regular bail vide order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 72912 of 2024 after considering the facts of the case.
9. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the deceased died in her matrimonial home and the postmortem report would also go to show that the
4/4 death had been caused due to poisoning.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly that the husband and the father-in-law of the deceased have already been taken into custody and the application for anticipatory bail on behalf of mother-in-law has also been withdrawn, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 82929 of 2024. Let the petitioners (Cr. Misc. No. 82929 of 2024), above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Supaual in connection with Supaul Nadi P.S. Case No. 131 of 2023, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) divyanshi/- U T