High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Abhai Kumar Rai @ Abhai Kumar &Amp; … vs State Of Bihar on 16 November, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Abhai Kumar Rai @ Abhai Kumar &Amp; … vs State Of Bihar on 16 November, 2010
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

                              Cr.Misc. No.22312 of 2010

                 1. ABHAI KUMAR RAI @ ABHAI KUMAR S/O LATE ARVIND
                    KUMAR RAI.
                 2. CHINTA DEVI WIFE OF ABHAI KUMAR RAI ALIAS ABHAI
                    KUMAR.
                         BOTH R/O VILLAGE-ORAINA, P.S. MUFFASIL,
                         DISTRICT-NAWADA.
                                               --PETITIONERS

                                           Versus

                  THE STATE OF BIHAR                 --OPP.PARTY

                                            With

                              Cr.Misc.     No.19706 of 2010

                  1. LALAN KUMAR S/O ABHAY KUMAR @ ABAI KUMAR RAI
                  2. SIMPI DEVI @ SIMPI KUMARI,
                        BOTH R/O VILLAGE-ORAINA, P.S. MUFFASIL,
                        DISTRICT-NAWADAH.
                                               --PETITIONERS

                                           Versus

                     THE STATE OF BIHAR              --OPP.PARTY


6   16.11.2010

Learned counsel is permitted to make correction

in the name of father of petitioner no.1 of Cr.Misc. no. 22312

of 2010.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

Nand Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

Since both these applications arise out of one

common case, they are being disposed of by this common
2

order.

Petitioners are named accused in this case being

parents-in-law and brother and sister-in-law of the deceased

sister of the informant whose dead body was found over

railway track. Initially one unnatural death case was

instituted wherein immediately father of the deceased arrived

and prayed for release of the body in his favour which was

done after autopsy. In the instant case, three autopsy was

conducted of the dead body which was found at substantial

distance from the house of the petitioners where she was

undisputedly residing before found dead. By way of

Annexure-4 there appears an application written by husband

of the deceased addressed to the Superintendent of Police

stating that at about 3.00 A.M., roughly three hours before

dead body was found, she, without intimating any one, left

the house. She was a mental patient but there is nothing in

the investigation to support such ailment. At the same time

except that there was a demand of dowry by in-laws of the

deceased, that is, petitioners. There is nothing specific

against them. The husband, undisputedly, after some

detention in custody, has been granted the privilege of bail.
3

Considering the facts and circumstances, the

petitioners, in the event of arrest or surrender within four

weeks from today, are directed to be enlarged on bail on

furnishing bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with

two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah, in Muffasil P.S. Case

no. 27 of 2010, subject to the conditions laid down in Section

438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional

condition that the petitioners shall remain present before the

court below on each and every date till commencement of the

trial. If the petitioners fail to remain present on two

consecutive dates without any reasonable explanation the

privilege granted shall be deemed to be cancelled.

(Akhilesh Chandra, J.)

AAhmad