IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41088 of 2009 1.NAVRATAN PANDEY Son of late Jagdish Pandey 2.Jamanta Devi @ Jamwanta Devi Wife of Navratan Pandey, Both resident of village Madhubani, P.S. Dhansoi, District Buxar. Versus STATE OF BIAHR ----------- 2 26/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioners, father-in-law and mother-in-law facing prosecution for the offence under sections 304 B and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code, seek bail on the ground that their daughter-in-law, the deceased had died natural death and in fact was also cremated by the family members after giving information to the father of the deceased. He would further submit that the husband about whom there is presumption for being the main person behind such offence is already in custody. This Court would find that the defence of the petitioners that they had informed the father of the deceased, the Informant of this case, is absolutely incorrect, inasmuch as, after two days of the death taking place on 28.5.2009 a half baked information was in fact allegedly given by his brother-in-law on 30.5.2009 and that too only to the extent that his daughter had suffered some burn injuries. That apart, when this Court would find that the informant father was residing at Calcutta and thus even if his daughter had a natural death, the fact that he was not even allowed of having last look by the petitioners as also their son would by itself expose the fall claim of the 2 petitioners either with regard to natural death of the deceased or a timely information of such death to the family members of the deceased. Thus the allegation against the petitioners cannot be altogether brushed aside at this stage. That being so, as also considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody only for a period of two to three months, this Court would reject their prayer for bail for the present. They would be however at liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the Court below itself if their trial is not concluded within a period of one year of their judicial custody, inasmuch as, this Court expects that the pending trial of the petitioner would be concluded by that period. If however the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period on account of laches on the part of the prosecution and the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected by the Court below they may renew their prayer for bail before this Court. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)