IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.22070 of 2011
======================================================
Bimala Devi, wife of Shugdeo Mandal@ Sugdeo Mandal, resident of
village Basagara, P.S. Raniganj, District-Araria.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Radheshyam Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA)
4 15-10-2011 Heard.
The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a criminal
prosecution registered under Sections 304B, 315/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the
prosecution case is accepted, then also no case under Section
304 B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused
persons including the petitioner, as there is no allegation of
demand of dowry against them. It is also submitted that matter
has been compromised between the parties. It is further
highlighted that co-accused Santosh Mandal, elder brother of the
husband of the deceased, has been granted regular bail by a
Bench of this Court.
2
Learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner. It is
pointed out that during the course of investigation several
witnesses have stated about the demand of dowry as also torture
being committed upon the deceased by the petitioner besides
other co-accused persons.
On perusal of the First Information Report vide
Annexure-1, this Court finds that the marriage of the deceased
with co-accused Manoj Mandal had taken place in the year 2005
and unnatural death of the deceased has taken place in the year
2010, that is well within a period of 7 years, as required under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code for constituting an
offence of dowry death. This Court further finds that the demand
of dowry was made by the petitioner and other accused persons
immediately after the marriage and due to non-fulfillment of
aforesaid demand, she has been done to death. At the time of
death, the deceased was carrying pregnancy and, therefore, the
petitioner and other accused persons have not only committed an
offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C., rather they have
also committed a serious offence punishable under Section
315 I.P.C.
In view of serious nature of allegation against the
3
petitioner and she being mother-in-law of the deceased, having
played important role for commission of crime in question, this
Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made on behalf of
the petitioner for grant anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly,
rejected.
The petitioner is hereby directed to surrender in the court
below within a period of four weeks from today in connection
with Raniganj P.S. Case No. 69 of 2010 pending in the court of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, and if so advised,
seek regular bail.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Devendra/-