IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8341 of 2008 ANIL KUMARV @ ANIL YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 16.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel appearing for the informant and the learned Addl. P.P. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the case has been registered under Section 304B/34 of the IPC, but in the FIR, it has been specifically mentioned that it is the husband of the deceased, who was demanding motor cycle from the time of his marriage and on non- fulfilment of the same he used to torture the sister of the informant from very beginning. He further contended that the petitioner is the brother-in-law and because of the member of the family, he has been implicated in this case. He further submitted that it has come in the case diary that this brother-in-law taken the deceased to hospital and was getting her treated. Counsel for the informant opposed the prayer and contended that the petitioner is more responsible for the death of the sister of the informant and this fact has come in the case diary in subsequent statement of the witnesses. Considering the fact that the prime responsibility for proper protection and security to the wife is of her husband and that her husband is already in custody and the first statement, which came in the FIR regarding demand of dowry and torture from very beginning is on the husband, petitioner brother-in-law, namely, Anil Kumar @ Anil Yadav is directed to 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Mehandia P.S. Case No. 24 of 2007. DKS (Rekha Kumari, J)