IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.22070 of 2011 ====================================================== Bimala Devi, wife of Shugdeo Mandal@ Sugdeo Mandal, resident of village Basagara, P.S. Raniganj, District-Araria. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Radheshyam Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA) 4 15-10-2011 Heard. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a criminal prosecution registered under Sections 304B, 315/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the prosecution case is accepted, then also no case under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons including the petitioner, as there is no allegation of demand of dowry against them. It is also submitted that matter has been compromised between the parties. It is further highlighted that co-accused Santosh Mandal, elder brother of the husband of the deceased, has been granted regular bail by a Bench of this Court. 2 Learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner. It is pointed out that during the course of investigation several witnesses have stated about the demand of dowry as also torture being committed upon the deceased by the petitioner besides other co-accused persons. On perusal of the First Information Report vide Annexure-1, this Court finds that the marriage of the deceased with co-accused Manoj Mandal had taken place in the year 2005 and unnatural death of the deceased has taken place in the year 2010, that is well within a period of 7 years, as required under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code for constituting an offence of dowry death. This Court further finds that the demand of dowry was made by the petitioner and other accused persons immediately after the marriage and due to non-fulfillment of aforesaid demand, she has been done to death. At the time of death, the deceased was carrying pregnancy and, therefore, the petitioner and other accused persons have not only committed an offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C., rather they have also committed a serious offence punishable under Section 315 I.P.C. In view of serious nature of allegation against the 3 petitioner and she being mother-in-law of the deceased, having played important role for commission of crime in question, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, rejected. The petitioner is hereby directed to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case No. 69 of 2010 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, and if so advised, seek regular bail. Devendra/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)