Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.44994 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Upendra Yadav 2. Arhuliya Devi 3. Santosh Yadav .... .... Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== 2 04-01-2012 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 being the parents of the husband and petitioner no.3 being the husband are apprehending their arrest in a case registered under [STATUTE] and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is alleged that after three years of marriage for the sake of non-fulfillment of the dowry demand the victim has been killed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant has admitted this fact that he participated in the cremation but for the occurrence 03.07.2011, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 13.08.2011. Annexure-2 reflects that the informant subsequently retracted from his initial version and filed a petition before the learned court below to the effect that the marriage was performed nine years prior to the occurrence. In that view of the matter, let the above named petitioner nos.1 and 2 be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, on furnishing the bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 381/2011 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. So far as, petitioner no.3 being the husband is concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him, hence his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected but considering the retracted version of the informant, let the learned court below consider the regular bail of the petitioner no.3 if the surrenders within a period of six weeks. Amrendra Kumar/- (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.