IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.19242 of 2011 Indrashini Devi wife of Ramasharay Singh, resident of village Modiyar Tola, Mokama, P.S.Mokama, District Patna Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr.Manish Kumar No.2 For the State : Mr.Addl.P.P. For the informant : Mr.Om Prakash (in person) ----- 03/ 05.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the informant. On the basis of fardbeyan of Om Prakash, a case has been registered against five named accused persons for offences under Sections 498(A) and 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is one of the named accused. Informant’s sister Rani Prushotam was married on 07.06.2010 with Sadan Kumar, son of the petitioner and merely within few months of her marriage she was killed and it was reported by Kundan Kumar, brother of her husband that she had suffered heart attack. The present case was lodged and it was alleged that the accused persons were raising various demands and prior to that informant’s sister was tortured by her in-laws. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the victim has committed suicide so no case is made out under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner being the mother-in-law was not in dominating position, so she was not in a position to compel her daughter-in-law for any demand. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner is a lady and under the 2 provision of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure her prayer is to be considered on different footing. It has also been submitted that the husband of the deceased is already in custody. Opposing the prayer for bail, the informant has submitted that the petitioner was also instrumental in all sorts of harassments to her daughter-in-law and all have connived together and they have killed his sister. Various demands were made but due to non-fulfilment of the same, his sister has been done away. Attention has been drawn towards the fact that the case has already been committed to the court of Sessions and is pending at Patna but the impugned order has been passed by Additional Sessions Judge III, Barh, so there is jurisdictional error. The case relates to Barh jurisdiction of Patna Judgeship and all bail matters at first instance have to be filed in Barh. The impugned order has been passed by the Barh court. There is no jurisdictional error. Though there is allegation against the petitioner also but considering the fact that she is a lady and the husband of the deceased is already in custody, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna in Mokama 3 P.S.Case No. 206 of 2010. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will attend the court regularly and if her conduct causes any sort of delay, then the informant will be at liberty to point out the same to the court concerned and such lapses on her part will result in cancellation of her bail. Tahir/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)