IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14105 of 2008 VIKAS KUMAR & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 21.7.2008. The two petitioners who happen to be the dewar and nanad of the daughter of the informant and are named in the F.I.R. are apprehensive of their arrest in connection with Begusarai(Mufassil) P.S. Case No.252 of 2007 registered under Sections 304(B), 341, 323, 328, 498(A)/34 I.P.C. as also Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and have prayed for anticipatory bail. The allegation against the petitioners is that they alongwith the other accused had indulged in demanding and perpetrating torture and atrocities on the daughter of the informant but the matter was compromised by intervention of co-villagers and well-wishers. The further allegation is that thereafter the information was received from one Sambhu Rajak that the informant’s daughter, Kiran Devi, was indisposed and on receipt of such information when the informant and his son with other family members reached the sasural of Kiran Devi they found her dead with visible marks of injuries on the neck, back and face and smell of poison was emanating from her mouth which prompted the informant to believe that she had been killed by her husband and in-laws by administration of poison for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. The husband and in-laws of the deceased were found absent from the house. It appears from the case diary that that the medical report does not confirm the prosecution story of the deceased having been - 2 - poisoned and the S.P., Begusarai, expressed doubts as to whether the deceased had been killed or murdered. It further appears that the report of the examination of the viscera had not been received. The submission on behalf of the petitioner no.1 is that he is aged between 15 - 16 years and lived separate from the deceased and her husband and petitioner no.2 having been married some two years back lived in her sasural at village Simaria at a distance of 30-40 kilometers. It was also submitted that the deceased was poisoned by Kanchan Devi, her gotani when she saw the deceased in a compromising position with another male and the petitioners had no hand therein. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. to these petitioners at the present moment. Their prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. However, they may move afresh for anticipatory bail after receipt of the viscera report. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)