IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28396 of 2008 1. RABINDRA RAI 2. LAGAN RAI Both are sons of Suren Rai, resident of village- Balwan Tola, P.S.- Doriganj, District- Saran 3. RINKU DEVI daughter of Suren Rai, wife of Anil Kumar, resident of village- Kauria Pali, P.S.Bihta, District- Patna Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3 11.11.2008 Heard learned counsels for petitioners and the State. Petitioners are accused for the offence under sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation as per the first information report is to the effect that these petitioners along with the co-accused started demanding dowry right from the date of marriage and on non-fulfillment of demand the daughter of the informant was done to death and the body of the deceased was made to disappear. It is further alleged that when the informant reached to the matrimonial house of the deceased the accused persons were absconding. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that as a matter of fact the deceased had gone to her parent’s house and on return from there she became unwell for that she was given medicines by the doctor and as a result of the said ailment the daughter of the informant died. It is further submitted that besides the above the informant has amicably settled the matter with the accused persons and has filed a petition of compromise (Annexure-5) to the effect that the - 2 - deceased had died her natural death for which the accused persons are not responsible. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on going through the case diary submits that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case although they are the family members and one independent witness could not say either way. Having considered the submissions, as noticed above, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioner no. 3, namely, Rinku Devi be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, in connection with Doriganj P.S.Case No. 26 of 2008 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner nos.1 & 2 is concerned, considering the nature of allegation levelled against them, I am not inclined to grant them the privilege of anticipatory bail. Their prayer is, accordingly, rejected. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)