IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4293 of 2011 HARILAL SAH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2 9.2.2011 The petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the victim girl, is in custody in relation to Mufassil P.S.Case no. 278 of 2010 instituted , inter alia, under Section 304 B IPC read with Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint was lodged on 14.6.2010 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, inter alia, alleging that the complainant heard that his daughter had been burnt in the night intervening of 9th and 10th June,2010 . He immediately went to the village and found the house locked and allegedly the girl had been cremated. He says that he went to the police station to lodge the information but it was not received. Hence the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the complaint, later registered as a case, itself it is clear the complainant/ informant god information about the incident on 10th June, 2010 itself and from 10th to 14th June, 2010, he took no steps in the matter rather he, in fact, participated, in the funeral. It is thereafter that the complaint is lodged. He points out that the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application committed serious error of records in noting that the informant received the information on 16.6.2010 to show that the information was with him. 2 Be that as it may, petitioner being the father-in-law, there being no overt act against him and the husband-Sanjay Sah being in custody, let above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Begusarai in Mufassil P.S.Case no. 278 of 2010. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)