IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1990 of 2010 AMRENDRA KUMAR @ AMRENDRA RAJA son of Sri Yogendra Prasad @ Yogendra Choudhary, resident village Chargharwa, P.S.- Ram Nagar, District- West Champaran …. Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 24.02.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, husband seeks anticipatory bail in connection with an offence under Section 304 B on the ground that other family members including father- in-law and mother-in-law have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the alleged admission of the informant that the deceased had died natural death and that the case earlier filed was on account of mistake of fact. This court would find that the informant in the earlier version had stated that the death had taken place on account of torture including demand of dowry and a threat was also given 3-4 days earlier to the occurrence that if money was not arranged within a period of four days, grand-daughter 2 of the informant shall be done to death. Consequently, it is the informant who has stated in the first information report that no information was given with regard to death of her grand-daughter and only from an outsider the informant could gather knowledge of the death of the deceased-lady. In that view of the matter, whatever was stated on 11.8.2009 would not get simply watered down if after one month, the Surpanch had given in writing that the deceased had died a natural death. Serpanch had no business to do so. Further reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner on an application filed on 29.9.2009 stating therein that the FIR was lodged on account of mistake and subsequently, the informant could learn that deceased had died on account of a natural death would also not improve the situation for two reasons. Firstly, the offence under Section 304 B I.P.C. is not compoundable and secondly if the informant had subsequently sought to change his earlier version in respect of an offence which has been found true by the police in course of investigation that will not make the case 3 false so as to give privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-husband. Additionally, this court would find that signature on Annexure- 4 alleged application filed by the informant and his signature on annexure-1, First Information Report also does not tally and therefore unless the informant is examined by the Court in course of deposition, it cannot be said that subsequent retraction of his earlier version is fit to be accepted for disbelieving the entire case. This Court would not give any weightage to the submission made by counsel for the informant in the earlier case while the bail application of father-in-law and mother-in-law was under consideration. The case of the husband always stands on a different footing and there being a direct allegation substantiating the offence under Section 304 B, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. That being so, this application is dismissed. However, in the event the petitioner would surrender and pray for regular bail, the court below would consider his prayer for regular bail on its 4 own merit without being prejudiced by this order. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)