IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25663 of 2010 1. HARI NANDAN PANDIT 2. DEVANTI DEVI 3. SATYENDRA PANDIT 4. SUNITA DEVI 5. SHATRUGHAN PANDIT 6. SUSHILA DEVI ---------------------- PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 18.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioners along with the husband about demand and torture for its non-fulfilment and disappearance of victim lady. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Husband has filed complaint petition prior to this case that parents of the victim took her with them but followed by some comment that she was suffering from some mental disorder, indicating for the fact that husband’s stand was not reliable to him, no difference was shown than mental disorder of the victim. There is no trace of the victim (informant’s daughter) and allegation is about making of demand by all the family members soon before death within seven years of marriage in matrimonial house indicative of the fact that there is every substance in the allegation and all the family members are responsible similar 2 to informant’s daughter’s husband otherwise there was scope of liberal view for the petitioners. Hence, prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of petitioners is rejected. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)