IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7699 of 2010 1.SURESH KUMAR SHARMA @ SURESH SHARMA 2.Lalit Kumar Sharma @ Lalit Sharma 3.Chandan Kumar Sharma @ Chandan Sharma, all resident of village Jokihat, P.S. Jokihat, Dist. Araria …….Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR opposite party. ----------- For the petitioners : Mrs. Reebha Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Akbar Ali,Advocate, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Nageshwar pd. Advocate. ------------ 4 20.5.2010 Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution based on a complaint petition vide Annexure-1 the cognizance against the accused persons including the petitioners appears to have taken by the learned Magistrate only for the offences under sections 307, 498A, 323, 120 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. From plain perusal of the complaint petition vide Annexure-1, it is apparent that the husband of the complainant was also killed by the petitioners and other co-accused persons. Death of the husband of the complainant is not in dispute. However, since the death of the husband of the complainant has taken place in the district of Araria and the present complaint petition vide Annexure-1 was filed in the district of Madhepura, , therefore, on the question of jurisdiction cognizance under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has not been taken by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners and other co-accused persons, though according to the complaint petition all the three petitioners appear to be mainly responsible for the killing of the husband of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since cognizance has not been taken under section 302 of the Indian penal Code, - 2 - therefore, that aspect need not be looked into by this court. It is further pointed out that as per the cognizance order, now the case stands only for the offence under section 498 A and 307 besides other minor offences under the Penal Code and since some other female co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by a bench of this Court, therefore, the petitioners may be also given similar relief. Be that as it may, since the complaint petition was filed in the year 2005 and the petiotners have approached this court after a lapse of 5 years in the year 2010 and further since the petitioners are alleged to be killers of the husband of the complainant, therefore, judicial conscience of this Court does not permit to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. It is accordingly rejected. The petitioners must surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today in connection with complaint case No. 632 of 2005, and seek regular bail, if so advised, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman