Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7164 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Nathuni Sah 2. Shivkali Devi. 3. Ranju Devi. 4. Sanjay Sah. 5. Sobha Devi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.10345 of 2012 ====================================================== Shambhu Sah .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 12-03-2012 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioners being the parents and other family members of the husband and the husband himself are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . It is alleged that the grand-daughter of the informant was killed within few months of the marriage. From the averment of the informant, it appears that the father of the husband informed the informant about the incident. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7164 of 2012 (2) dt.12-03-2012 2 / 2 2 Considering the general accusation against the entire family members of the husband, let the above named petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 7164 of 2011, 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, Siwan in connection with G.B. Nagar (Pachrukhi) P.S. Case No. 160 of 2011, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. So far as petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 10345 of 2011 is concerned, since the thrust of accusation is against the husband, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to Shambhu Sah being the husband. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner Shambhu Sah, is rejected. 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.