IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28331 of 2009 JAI SHANKAR RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 04.01.2010 Heard Sri B.P. Pandey, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dashrath Mehta, learned APP for the state and Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant. Some of the admitted facts are that the informant was the wife of the elder brother of the petitioner and that the husband of the lady died on 19.3.2008. It may be noted down at this stage itself that the learned counsel for the informant attempted to impress upon me that it was not an ordinary death, rather it was murder. The other fact which is admitted is that the petitioner entered into some sort of affidavit, jointly executed and sworn by the informant and himself, indicating as if the two were married in a temple. It also does not appear disputed that the lady was residing away from the petitioner in the house of her parents. The reason assigned by the lady for living in her parents’ house is that the petitioner having married her, after the death of her husband, ditched her so as to marrying a particular girl named in the written report. It does not appear indicated as to what were the modes and dates and other descriptions of torturing the lady either by the petitioner or by others of his family members. A general allegation was made that she was tortured so as to desert the house of the petitioner to take shelter in her parents’ house. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has castigated the very affidavit by referring to some of the statements of persons - 2 - who had signed as witnesses to that affidavit and, as such, the marriage, who stated that there was no such marriage indeed solemnized, inasmuch as only seven days had passed after the death of the husband of the lady and it was universally not acceptable that the lady would be going to marry a man and the petitioner shall be solemnizing his marriage to the lady. It was contended next that in fact, it is a ploy to put pressure upon the petitioner for many other reasons, may be, for the reasons to get the whole part of money which was to be paid by some financial institutions on maturity on account of some investments made by the husband of the lady. Learned counsel for the informant very strenuously submitted that the husband of the lady was murdered. The court is not ready to accept that contention inasmuch as the written report was presented to the police and that did not contain any such statement. The court may accept that there could be some arrangement for saving the family property but when it comes to the validity of the marriage, as is presently alleged, it has some reservations and in the background of that reservation, in the light of the contention of learned senior counsel on the elapse of only seven days from the death of the husband, the court could say that the story of marriage is to be decided by the court on the parameters of principles of law. There is no instance of torture. There is no details thereof as well except that the petitioner had arranged to get himself married to another lady, considering which, let petitioner Jai Shankar Rai be - 3 - released on bail, in the event of surrender or arrest by the police, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10000/ (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Buxar in Dumraon P.S. Case no. 24 of 2009 subject to the conditions as laid down in section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)