IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23446 of 2009 1. SHIV LAL SINGH @ MATHURA SINGH 2. RISHI KUMAR ….. PETITIOENRS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR ….. OPP. PARTY ----------- 02 15.09.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioners, who are father-in-law and debar of the victim have applied for anticipatory bail in a case instituted under Sections 304(B), 498(A), 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Initially a complaint was lodged on 12.1.2009, which was subsequently treated as an F.I.R. on 2.2.2009. Allegation as per F.I.R., is that the deceased was tortured on account of non- fulfillment of demand of dowry. Within a year of her marriage, she was done to death in the matrimonial home in a very suspicious circumstance. Complaint/ F.I.R. does indicates that torture including physical assault by the family inmates. While pressing for anticipatory bail, it is contended that the victim was pregnant at the time of death. She died of abdominal pain. She was afforded medical care. Learned Sessions Judge considered the submission of the petitioners, and concluded 2 that the petitioners being medical practitioner created so many documents in support of the aforesaid submission. By filing supplementary affidavit, it is contended that the I.O. in course of investigation, has found that the victim was admitted in the hospital and was afforded medical assistance before she died. Be that as it may, having regard to the allegations and the materials available on record, this Court is not persuaded to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail. Let the petitioners appear and surrender in the court below and apply for regular bail which shall be considered on its own merit uninfluenced by the present order. The application is accordingly, disposed of. P.K. (K.K. Mandal, J.)