IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24343 of 2011 1.Ram Kumar Mahto, Son of Chathu Mahto. 2.Daiwati Devi, Wife of Chathu Mahto. 3.Chathu Mahto, Son of Dhodhai Mahto. 4. Babloo Mahto, Son of Chathu Mahto. All residents of Village Madhepur, P.S. Hasanpur, District Samastipur. -------Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar -----Opposite Party ---------------- 03/- 18/10/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, who is armed with carbon copy of the case diary. The four petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, are named accused in this case, instituted on basis of Complaint Case No. 819 of 2010 being husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased daughter of the complainant-informant, who died under suspicious circumstances within three years of her marriage after being blessed with a female child and suffering a lot for demand of dowry, torture etc. Submission is that deceased herself consumed poison and lost her life during treatment before a private doctor. Her parents including the complaint-informant participated in the cremation ceremony, subsequently, to put pressure to transfer substantial land in favour of daughter of the deceased, this case has been instituted. There is no explanation for non-intimating the authorities about the death of deceased even as a result of commission of suicide, consequently, nothing could be ascertained as cause of her death and there is allegation of demand of dowry, torture etc. However, there is nothing specific against petitioner no. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of her arrest/surrender before the court below within four weeks, let the above named petitioner no. 2 be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 136 of 2010, subject to condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code with additional condition to remain physically present before the court below on each and every date at least for one year or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier, in case of failure on two consecutive dates, without giving any reasonable explanation, the liberty granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. As far as remaining three petitioners i.e. petitioner nos. 1, 3 & 4 are concerned, they do not deserve the privilege. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Praveen/- ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)