IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26503 of 2010 LUKHIYA DEVI @ LAKHIYA DEVI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 9.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned P.P. for the State. Admittedly, petitioner no.1 is mother-in-law and petitioner no.2 is Gutani of the deceased. It appears from perusal of the FIR itself that on the alleged date of the occurrence deceased was demanding money from her mother-in-law and when her demand was not fulfilled the alleged occurrence took place. The specific stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, as a matter of fact, deceased was demanding money for treatment of her child and when she could not get money, she committed suicide but taking advantage of the aforesaid incident, informant lodged this case against petitioners as well as their entire family members. Although learned P.P. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail but from the very face of the FIR itself, it is apparent that cause of incident was dispute of not giving money to the deceased. In the aforesaid circumstances, this anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners(Lukhiya Devi @ Lakhiya Devi and Lukhari Devi) in the event of their arrest/ surrender within 30 days from the date of communication of the order be released on bail in connection with Dharhara P.S. Case no. 82 of 2008 on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger 2 subject to condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J))