IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33907 of 2010 SUNITA DEVI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.37110 of 2010 PERMANAND MAHTO & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR 4 07.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the state assisted by learned counsel for the informant. Both the above-said Cr. Misc. cases arise out Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 93 of 2010 registered under sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, above-said Criminal Cases are being disposed of by this common order. Admittedly, petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 33907 of 2010 are; Gotanies whereas petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 37110 of 2010 are; Dewar and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. The marriage of deceased had taken place five years ago and after marriage, she gave birth to two children. But, subsequently, on 14.07.2010, the informant got a message that his daughter was killed by the petitioners and other accused on 13.07.2010 on account of non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry. It is stated that when the informant came at the matrimonial home of the deceased, the deceased daughter, aged about 3 years, narrated the manner in which her mother was killed by the petitioners as well as other accused. In course of investigation, when the I.O. tried to record the - 2 - statement of deceased’s daughter, she could hardly speak Mummy, uncle and aunt. Admittedly, the informant came to know about the manner of occurrence through the daughter of deceased. Moreover, learned counsel for the informant opposes the bail petitions on the ground that deceased died within seven years of her marriage in mysterious circumstances on account of illegal demand and the information regarding her death was not properly given to the informant by the petitioners and others. But I am not at all convinced with the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the informant because the petitioners hail from a poor family and he husband of the deceased was working at Ludhiana at the relevant time and even after passing of 5 years of the marriage, the demand of dowry is still persist, it appears to be unbelievable. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, the petitioners, namely, Sunita Devi and Maheshwari Devi @ Dhaneshwari Devi (in Cr Misc No. 33907 of 2010), Permanand Mahto and Jugli Devi (in Cr. Misc. No. 37110 of 2010) are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Bhagwanpur P. S. Case No. 93 of 2010 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)