IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33453 of 2009 SHAILENDRA KUMAR, son of Ganauri @ Hazari Prasad, resident of village Mikipar, P.S. Pali, District Jehanabad Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 24.2.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner, husband, for offence u/ss 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code while seeking anticipatory bail has his defence that his wife had died natural death the fact, which has been corroborated in paragraph 12 in the statement of Ram Sewak Yadav and the statement of other witnesses. He has also submitted that the family members of the deceased wife of the petitioner had in fact participated in the funeral and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not given information with regard to natural death of his wife, the daughter of the informant. On the basis of all these it has been contended that the petitioner would deserve anticipatory bail even when his brother was given only regular bail. Two things are very difficult to be explained, one namely that the informant has 2 categorically stated that parting from the earlier practice of cremating the dead body by the bank of the river the petitioner and other family members has hurriedly disposed of the body in the village itself. Secondly, the informant has categorically stated that he was never informed by the family members and in fact when he came to know of such an occurrence from an outsider and had rushed to the village home of the petitioner, he had found the house locked and later on came to know that the dead body was disposed of. Such specific statement of the informant cannot be disbelieved only because the police in paragraph 31 of the case diary without naming the persons of any of the family members has given a crispy comment that it could come to know from certain sources that even the family members of Sasural of the petitioner were present at the time of cremation. Additionally this Court would find that even the elder brother of the petitioner was only given a regular bail. Thus, taking the larger canopy and broad feature of this case, this Court is 3 not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the husband petitioner for an offence u/s 304B I.P.C. Any reliance placed on the order of this Court granting regular bail will be of no avail to the petitioner because there is a different standard for granting anticipatory bail and regular bail. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that if the petitioner would surrender and seek regular bail, anything said in this order will not stand in his way or cause prejudice to him. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/