IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21295 of 2009 HARIBALLABH DAS @ HARIBALLAV DAS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 06.07.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 304B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the complainant/informant learnt about the killing of her daughter by the husband and others by putting her on fire within 7 years of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the occurrence had taken place 06 years after the marriage and had taken place at Delhi. It is contended that the husband, who is in custody used to reside with his wife (deceased) at Delhi. Referring to certain averments in the concluding portion of the complainant, it is contended that the informant went to Delhi to obtain the certificate issued by the L.N.J.P. Hospital. It is further contended that cremation was also performed at Delhi. Learned counsel in order to seek bail heavily relies on the averment made in paragraph 9 of the bail petition which reads as under: ‘(9) That it is humbly submitted and stated that the petitioner is living separate from his brother Dilip Das who is husband of the deceased Pinki Devi. It is further submitted that the petitioner is resident of Mahishi and Dilip Das the husband of the deceased was living at Delhi and he had no manner of concern with the other accused persons of this case.” 2 It is further contended that the petitioner is elder brother of the husband of the victim and is in custody since 28.12.2008. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let petitioner abovenamed be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in connection with Mahishi P.S. case no. 59 of 2008. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )