IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36431 of 2009 1. RAM ISHWAR RAI sonof Suresh Rai, 2. Sanjay Rai son of Ram Ishwar Rai, 3. Dev Kumari Devi wife of Ram Ishwar Rai, residents of village Virampur, P.S. Koilwar District Bhojpur… … Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR.. ..OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioners: M/s A.K. Thakur and Amir Alam, Advocates For the State : Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Hari Mohan Tripathi, Advocate ----------- 3 25.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the informant. Petitioners are accused in a case registered under sections 341, 323, 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Prosecution case is that all the petitioners used to demand dowry. On 09.12.2008 at about 10.00 AM petitioner nos. 1 and 3 sprinkled kerosene oil upon the informant. When she tried to escape the petitioner no. 1 (father-n-law0 caught hold of the informant and petitioner no. 3 (mother-in-law) had set her on fire, due to which she had received injury. The husband came later on, but he did not help her and take her to the hospital for treatment. It is stated that next day some or the other the family members 2 of the informant heard about the occurrence and thereafter they reached there and took her to the hospital for her treatment. The injury report has been annexed as annexure 2 to this application. It is apparent therefrom that there is burn injury of 35%, however, the injury is stated to be simple in nature caused by burn. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fire was accidental and they immediately took her for treatment. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are stated to be in custody since 30.06.2009, whereas petitioner no. 3 is in custody since 22.07.2009. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is of torture for demand of dowry and thereafter on the date of occurrence petitioner nos. 1 and 3 had set the informant on fire, whereas petitioner no. 2, who is her husband, had subsequently come, but he did not take her for treatment. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that there had been demand of dowry, which would be manifest from the first information report itself and petitioner nos. 1 and 3 had set the informant on fire causing burn injury, which clearly indicates their motive, 3 whereas so far petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he had subsequently come and though , it was his duty to immediately take his wife to the hospital for treatment, he did not do that and on the next day the family members of the parents of the informant had taken her to hospital for treatment. Further submission is that from the injury report it is apparent that though the occurrence is of 09.12.2008, but the informant had been examined on 11.12.2008, which clearly demonstrates that her in-laws had not taken her for treatment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner nos. 1 and 3, namely, Ram Ishwar Rai and Devi Kumari Devi, on bail and their prayer for bail is rejected for the present. So far petitioner no. 2, Sanajay Rai, is concerned, the facts and circumstances of the case, he is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah in Koilwar Police Station Case No. 233/08. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)