IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35538 of 2008 1. NARAYAN PRASAD, son of Late Ram Anugrah Prasad 2. RAMAWATI DEVI w/o Narayan Prasad Both are resident of Village Sangrampur, P.S. Sangrampur,Distt. East Champaran, Motihari ------Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ram Chandra Prasad s/o Late Radhey Ram Sah 3. Deepak Kumar son of Ram Chandra Prasad Both resident of Kalibagh Joraenar P.S. Town Bettiah, Distt. West Champaran ------Opposite Parties ----------- 5. 25.3.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as the informant. The offence alleged against the petitioners, who apprehend their arrest in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No.47/08, is under section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the petitioners are to the effect that on account of non-fulfilment of the dowry demand, the daughter of the informant was killed by burning. It is further alleged that after she was burnt, she informed her own sister Sunita Devi with regard to the incident of burning her by sprinkling kerosene oil over her body. The daughter of the informant thereafter subsequently died on account of burn injury. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the present case has been lodged against the petitioners merely to implicate them in false case which would be appearing from perusal of the Fard beyan of the deceased wherein she 2 has stated that while preparing meal for her children she accidentally got burnt and as such the allegation that these petitioner burnt her after sprinkling kerosene oil is absolutely baseless. The learned counsel for the State on perusal of the case diary submits that during the investigation, the statement of the husband of the deceased was recorded who has stated that the deceased got burn injury while preparing meal whereas the elder sister of the deceased has stated that on 11.4.2008, the deceased Poonam Devi had informed her that she was burnt by her in-laws after sprinkling kerosene oil over her body. The learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the Fard beyan of the deceased Poonam Devi, as contained in Annexure 2, should not be accepted which does not appear to be natural since when she got the burn injury below her waist and feet, how could she give thumb impression of her feet on the Fard beyan instead of thumb impression of her hand. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, I am not inclined to allow this application seeking anticipatory bail. The same is, accordingly, rejected. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)