IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38991 of 2009 1. SURENDRA KUWAR,son of late Nunu Kuwar, resident of village-Sihoal,P.S.-Bihra, District-Saharsa 2. Gayatri Devi,wife of Surendra Kuwar, resident of village-Sihoal,P.S.-Bihra, District-Saharsa. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.38124 of 2009 1. SHYAMAL KISHORE JHA @ SHYAMAL KUMAR JHA,son of late Chandra Shekhar Jha 2. Rubi Devi,w/o Shyam Kishore Jha Both are resident of village- Kahra,P.S.+ Distt.-Saharsa. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 24-12-2009 As both these cases arise out of the same police station case number, they are heard together. Petitioners of Cr.Misc.No.38124 of 2009 are Nandoshi and Nanad though have been alleged for demand, torture and even killing but only a vague allegation has been levelled. Their presence at in-laws house cannot be presumed that can be accepted when witnesses come and state about their presence at the relevant time, which is lacking in the case. In the circumstances, their prayer for anticipatory bail in Cr.Misc.No.38124 of 2009 is allowed. In case of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in Bihra P.S.Case No.94/2009, the above named petitioners in Cr.Misc.No.38124 of 2009 shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2 Saharsa, subject to the conditions as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners of Cr.Misc.No.38991 of 2009 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased though they have been alleged for demand of dowry and torture for its non-fulfilment soon before the death within seven years of the marriage in matrimonial house fixes liability upon them. If killing by these petitioners’ hand was incorrect information then also there is no explanation for deceased’s family members’ assertion regarding demand and torture if that is denied then criminal liability can be fixed upon the informant and his witnesses for false prosecution; otherwise that can easily be taken with tampering with the evidence. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail (in Cr.Misc.No.38991 of 2009) is rejected. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )