Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21026 of 2012 ====================================================== Siddhnath Bhatt .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.19207 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Gajadhar Bhatt 2. Manrakhan Devi @ Manrakhani Devi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 13-07-2012 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioners being the husband and parents of the husband of the deceased are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . It is alleged that the daughter of the informant was married with Siddnath Bhatt (petitioner) in the year 2011 since the first wife of the petitioner died earlier. Within few months of the marriage, the victim was killed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the victim was slightly mentally abraised when the family of the victim has denied the accusation of demand of dowry. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21026 of 2012 (3) dt.13-07-2012 2/2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that much prior to the lodging of the Sanha by the husband of the deceased the informatory petition was filed by the informant alleging that he is not being allowed to meet his daughter. Considering the nature of accusation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to Siddnath Bhatt. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Considering the fact that there is no specific accusation against the parents of the husband of the deceased, let the above named petitioners except Siddnath Bhatt be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 136 of 2011, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Amrendra/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.