IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16445 of 2009 TUNTUN SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 4.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are elder and younger brothers and wife of elder brother of deceased husband. All the in-laws including the petitioners have been alleged for demand, torture and lastly killing. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that witnesses are constant on the point that the deceased was suffering from ailment due to which she died. The informant was informed about the death. He joined the cremation but after 45 days of the incident this case is lodged. There is nothing to doubt that there are two sets of witnesses, one, who have come in defence of the accused persons and the other to corroborate the prosecution case. Learned A.P.P. also referred to give more importance to defence witnesses but they are divided in two groups further. In paragraphs-7 to 10 of the case diary they are stating about the - 2 - death due to ailment while in paragraph-31 there is statement of several villages that the deceased consumed poison. In paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24 of the case diary, there are statements to corroborate the prosecution case. Admittedly the occurrence took place within seven years of marriage in matrimonial house followed by demand and torture caused at the hand of in-laws including the petitioners. Information regarding death was communicated by in-laws. Delay can play any role to disbelieve the prosecution case is to be considered at the stage of trial. At present keeping in view the allegation, I find petitioners not entitled for anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, petitioners are directed to surrender in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua in connection with Ramgarh P.S.Case No. 95/2008 and pray for regular bail which shall be decided on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI