IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10831 of 2010 1. Radhiya Devi, wife of Uttim lal Yadav. 2. Tatri Devi @ Tetari Devi, daughter of Uttim Lal Yadav. 3. Pinki Devi @ Pinku Devi, daughter of Krit Narayan Yadav. All resident of Village- Mirchai bari, P.S. Jankinagar, District- Purnea…………………………….Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………….Opposite Party. For the petitioners :- Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh. For the State :- Mr. Md. Arif, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 28. 04. 2010. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Let it be kept on record. Heard the parties. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 153 C of 2007 which was filed for offences under Sections 498 A, 323, 504, 304 B and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the prosecution case, accused Dinesh Yadav was married with deceased Poonam Devi, the daughter of the complainant in the year 1998. Subsequently, aforesaid accused Dinesh Yadav developed illicit relationship with Petitioner No. 3, Pinki Devi. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture against accused persons including the petitioners. The deceased Poonam Devi is said to have been done to death at Delhi and her dead body was made traceless. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Petitioner No. 1 is mother-in-law of the deceased, Petitioner No. 2 Tatri Devi @ Tetari Devi is the married Nanad (Sister-in-law) of 2 the deceased and Petitioner No. 3 is said to be concubine of accused Dinesh Yadav. By referring to Annexure- 2, it is highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 498 A only and no cognizance has been taken under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, on that ground alone petitioners are entitled to have privilege of anticipatory bail, as there is no specific allegation of committing the crime in question against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners and by referring to order dated 16. 05. 2009 (Annexure-2) itself, it is submitted that cognizance under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code was not taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate merely on the ground that place of occurrence was not within his jurisdiction. It is further highlighted by the learned A.P.P. that before the Sessions court there has been admission by the petitioners that Poonam Devi (victim) is no more in this world and according to the petitioners, she died because of certain abdominal pain. From the submissions made by the parties, it is apparent that Poonam Devi, daughter of the complainant, has been killed by the accused persons. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, on certain technical ground appears to have not taken cognizance under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, but facts remain that daughter of the complainant has been killed by the husband and her in-laws at her matrimonial home. 3 Be that as it may, in view of serious nature of allegation, prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners is dismissed. The petitioners must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised, which shall be disposed of on its own merit. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)