IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35964 of 2009 RAM PARI DEVI W/O LAL BABU RAI VILL-SUBHAI GADH(SOUTH TOLA),P.S-HAZIPUR,DISTT-VAISHALI …. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.44425 of 2009 ARVIND RAI son of Lal Babu Rai, resident of village Subhai Gadh (South Tola), P. S. Sadar Hajipur, District Vaishali…. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 4. 14.12.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The two petitioners being mother-in- law and brother-in-law (Dewar) who are facing prosecution for offence under Sections 304- B/34 of the Indian Penal Code have their defence that even though the allegations have been made against all the family members but it is the husband who has direct nexus either in the demand of dowry or in the resultant death of deceased, wife. It is also submitted that father-in-law, Lal Babu Rai has already been released on bail under the order of this court dated 16.5.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 18777 of 2008. Considering the fact that the petitioner, Ram Pari Devi is an old woman and has been in custody since 17.8.2008 i.e. for 2 a period of more than three months and the husband himself i.e. her son, has already surrendered, this court would direct petitioner Ram Pari Devi, for being released on bail on her furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Hajipur Sadar P. S. Case No. 459 of 2006, subject to a condition that one of the bailors must be a close family member of the petitioner. It goes without saying that petitioner, Ram Pari Devi shall remain present in course of trial and her absence for two consecutive dates will make her liable for cancellation of her bail. As with regard to petitioner, Arvind Rai (Dewar) this court would find that he was a named accused in a case lodged in the year 2006 and had remained absconding for a period of three years and therefore his custody being only a little more than three and a half months (w.e.f.17.8.2009) will not be sufficient for his being released on bail till he would complete at least six months of 3 his further judicial custody. The prayer for bail of petitioner Arvind Rai is hereby rejected for the present. He may renew his prayer for bail after completing six months of his further judicial custody. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)