Patna High Court - Orders
Shakari Devi @ Sankari Devi & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 15 November, 2016
Author: Prabhat Kumar Jha
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36359 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -91 Year- 2016 Thana -KAMTAUL District- DARBHANGA
======================================================
1. Shakari Devi @ Sankari Devi W/o Ram Vilakshan Yadav @ Ram
Billakchhan Yadav
2. Ram Vilakshan Yadav @ Ram Billakchhan Yadav S/o Late Harideo
Yadav
3. Manish Yadav @ Manish S/o Ram Vilaskhan Yadav @ Ram Billakchan
Yadav
4. Chhotu Yadav S/o Ram Vilakshan Yadav @ Ram Billakchan Yadav All
are R/o Village - Sirhulli, P.S. - Kamtaul, District - Darbhanga.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ataur Rahman, APP.
For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 15-11-2016Heard both sides.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 91 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that he married his daughter to Satish Yadav, son of petitioner no. 1 and 2 about a year ago, but after four months of her marriage the petitioners and the husband of his daughter began to demand additional dowry. The informant further alleged that all the accused persons sprinkled kerosene oil and ignited fire in the body of his daughter. The accused persons Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36359 of 2016 (5) dt.15-11-2016 2/2 got his daughter admitted in the clinic of Dr. P.N. Jha where his daughter got consciousness and disclosed about the incident that how the accused persons sprinkled kerosene oil and burnt her.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are mother-in-law, father-in-law and brothers-in-law of the deceased. No specific allegation is made against the petitioners. The petitioners have got no manner of concern with the deceased and her husband, but it appears that the deceased, herself, disclosed the incident to her father when she got consciousness but the informant did not disclose this fact to any body. The lady remained under treatment and died, but it appears from perusal of the FIR and the statement of the informant that the deceased, herself, disclosed about the incident and the fact that these petitioners sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and ignited fire in order to kill her due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/-
U T