IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45369 of 2009 1. Raju Ram, son of Late Barjai Ram 2. Nanhku Ram, son of Late Dayali Ram 3. Mauze Ram, son of Late Rambriksh Ram 4. Maheshwari Devi, wife of Late Barju Ram. All are resident of Village- Mohanpur, P.S. Piprahi. District- Sheohar. 5. Babita Devi, wife of Ranjeet Ram of Village-Mohanpur, P.S. Parsauni, District- Sitamarhi. 6. Manita Devi @ Parmila Devi, wife of Bhola Ram. Resident of Village- Ratanpur Pakari, P.S.-Piprahi District- Sheohar. ……..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Krishanandan Ram, son of Late Ramchandra Ram, Resident of Village- Madar P.S. Belsand, District-Sitamarhi. ……Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 16. 04. 2010. Heard Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha No. 3, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Bindeshwar Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and Mr. R. B. Roy ‘Raman’ learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Piprahi P. S. Case No. 76/2009 dated 16. 09. 2009, registered under Sections 304 B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the prosecution case, deceased Babita Kumari was married with Petitioner No. 1, Raju Ram. The allegation of demand of dowry and torture is against all the accused persons including the petitioners and due to non-fulfilment of the aforesaid demand of dowry the aforesaid Babita Kumari was finally killed on 14. 09. 2009, i.e. after two years of her marriage. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the deceased and Petitioner No. 2 happens to be uncle of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 4 is mother- in-law of the deceased and Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are married sister-in-law ( Nanad) whereas Petitioner No. 3 happens to be co- villager of Petitioner No. 1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that now the matter has been compromised between the parties and therefore, on that ground alone they may be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that offence is not compoundable one and the petitioners are specifically named in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the informant has not disputed the factum of compromise. Be that as it may, in view of nature of allegation and in view of relationship of petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 being husband and mother-in-law of the deceased and both of them being named in the F.I.R. with specific allegation against them, their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. They must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and if so advised, seek regular bail which may be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. However, taking into consideration the relationship of Petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 with the deceased as also taking into 3 consideration that there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture against these petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioners, namely, Nanhku Ram, Mauze Ram, Babita Devi and Manita Devi @ Pramila Devi shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M., Sheohar, in connection with Piprahi P.S. Case No. 76/2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)