IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3730 of 2011 RAMA NAND PRASAD & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 05.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the state. Admittedly, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are; father-in- law and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively. It appears from perusal of written report as well as case diary that on account of some family feud, petitioners and other accused mercilessly killed the deceased by giving Gadansa blow. Paragraph-4 of the case diary reveals that daughter of the deceased has specifically stated this fact that petitioners assaulted her mother with Gadansa as a result of which, she died. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except the aforesaid witnesses, there is nothing to show the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged crime. It is further contended by him that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and she died of her above-said ailment but the informant who happens to be brother of the deceased, lodged this false case against the petitioners with some ulterior motive. It is also contended by him that the husband of the deceased has also not supported the prosecution case. It is further contended by him that so far as daughter of the deceased is concerned, her statement was not recorded by the I.O. properly - 2 - and subsequently, the daughter of the deceased has filed a petition before the court disclosing the real facts. Taking into consideration the above-said facts and circumstances as well as submission of the parties, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail in connection with Kako P.S. Case No. 163 of 2010 stands rejected. However, in course of trial, if any new material comes, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)