IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41355 of 2009 CHANDO PASWAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 14.12.2009 Heard. The petitioner is named in the FIR of a case under sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC. Deceased Dharmshila Devi was married to Amirak Paswan, who was already married to accused Ramawati Devi. Said Amirak Paswan happened to die during harness and, as such, his family members probably was paid some amount of money. The deceased wanted some share in that money which was resisted by the first wife of Amirak Paswan, namely, Ramawati Devi and she also used to hold out threats to Dharmshila Devi of getting her killed with the help of other family members, like, brothers of the deceased husband etc. The informant received a telephonic message on 22.7.2009 that the Sautan of his sister and the nephew of his deceased bahnoi had assaulted the deceased. This message was passed by the deceased herself. On 25.7.2009, a unanimous person made a call to the informant informing him that his sister Dharmshila has been murdered by the accused persons named in the FIR and that the dead body has been disposed of. The manner of committing murder was of slitting the throat of the lady with the help of a Fasuli ( a weapon used by toddy tapers). The dead body appears recovered and two daughters of the deceased came forward to give statement in support of the - 2 - allegations. Ranju Devi, in paragraph 7 and Rani Kumari, in paragraph 8 of the case diary have supported the allegation. Some other persons have given hear say account of the occurrence. The contention is that Ranju does not name this petitioner nor Rani named the petitioner as the person who had either cut or slit upon the throat of the lady. Be that as it may, considering the allegation and the support that it was a concerted effort of the remaining family members to annihilate the other member, who was widowed beyond her control, only for the reason that she was demanding some money, the court is not inclined to direct release of the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. It was informed during hearing of the present petition that the investigation has been kept pending while charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. I direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura to go through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Chandra Vinayak Dongre Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 16 and act accordingly by passing a summoning order if he is satisfied about the material available in the case diary against the accused persons against whom the investigation has been kept pending and ensure that the case is committed simultaneously and not in bits. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charges in the trial court. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)