The court does not inspire confidence with regard to their innocence and rejects pre-arrest bail to the petitioners arrested under Sections 304-B/34 IPC: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14421 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 683 Year 2019 Thana BANKA District Banka Bhawani Devi aged about 55 years wife of Anirudh Sah Chandan Shah @ Chandan Kumar Sahaged about 35 years Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Sahaged about 28 years both sons of Anirudh All resident of Village Parghari P.S. Dhoriya Dist. Banka ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda Advocate Ms Pushpa Sinha APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ... Opposite Party s Date : 05 08 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners on 30.07.2021 which was allowed. 3. Heard Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Pushpa Sinha learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 3 has been arrested and he may be permitted to withdraw the petition on his behalf. In view thereof the petition on behalf of petitioner no. 3 Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Sah stands Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14421 dt.05 08 2021 disposed of as withdrawn and is restricted to petitioners no. 1 and 2 namely Bhawani Devi and Chandan Sah @ Chandan 5. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with BankaPS Case No. 6819 dated 23.09.2019 instituted under Sections 304 B 34 of the Indian Penal Code 6. The petitioner no. 1 is the mother in law and petitioners no. 2 and 3 are the brothers of the husband of the deceased. The allegation against them is of being party to killing her as the body was found in a pond. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are separate in mess and residence and have no connection with any foul play if at all it has taken place. It was submitted that the marriage took place six years prior to the incident and there are two minor children also born out of the wedlock and thus there was no occasion to commit such crime. Further it was submitted that in the past there has been no complaint before any authority though it has been mentioned in the FIR that there was demand for dowry and the victim was tortured but without any supporting material. Learned counsel submitted that the pond was of the temple in the village and the deceased may have slipped and fallen in the pond leading to her death by Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14421 dt.05 08 2021 drowning but there was no foul play much less by the petitioners. It was submitted that the husband of the deceased is in custody since 23.09.2019. It was further submitted that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent. 8. Learned APP submitted that the circumstances indicate the involvement of the petitioners and it appears that a crime was committed for the reason that they were family members of the deceased living in the same house and if the deceased had gone somewhere and had not returned it was their duty to look for her or to intimate the police that she was missing and the informant who lives somewhere else was informed at 11.00 AM and thereafter when he came the body was still lying in the pond which indicates that the petitioners were either totally not bothered or because of their role had not intimated any authority. It was submitted that the natural conduct of a person would be that if any person of the household is missing they would look for the person and would also inform the authorities but in the present case the victim having been out of the house for a long period and the body found in the village pond near the temple it cannot be accepted they were unaware of such development for the reason that the informant came to know at 11.00 AM and then it must have Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14421 dt.05 08 2021 been taken some time for him to reach the village and when he came the body was still lying in the pond which clearly shows that the family of the husband of the deceased have much to explain as she was living in the matrimonial home. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP. The conduct of the petitioners as has been submitted by learned APP does not inspire confidence with regard to their innocence 10. For reasons aforesaid the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners 11. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary: The petitioners were arrested under Section 304-B, “Dowry death”, section 34IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This is in connection with Banka (Barahat) PS Case No. 683 of 2019 dated 23.09.2019. This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 5th of August 2021 in the case of Bhawani Devi others versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.1440 of 2021, Mr. Md. Najmul Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Pushpa Sinha represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, petitioner no.1 is the mother-in-law and petitioner no.2 and 3 are the brothers of the husband of the deceased. The petitioners have been accused of being party to the killing of the deceased as her body was recovered from a pond. The counsel for the petitioners held that the petitioners lived separately from the couple and have no connection with any foul play that has taken place. The couple was married years prior to the incident and they have two minor children and therefore no one in the right mind would indulge in such a crime. It was also held that there has been no past abuse from the husband and no complaint as well regarding the same before any authority. According to the FIR, there was a demand for dowry, and the deceased was tortured before her death but there is no evidence to prove the same. As the pound was in the temple located at the village, the deceased might have slipped and drowned in the pond and therefore there was no foul play by the petitioners, the husband has been held in custody and the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent. The Additional Public Prosecutor held that according to the circumstances it clearly indicates the role played by the petitioners in the crime. It was transpired that the family members all living in the same house and if the deceased had not returned home, it was the duty of the family to look for her or approach the police for the same which they failed to do. The informant who was residing in a different place heard the news and came to the place at 11:00 AM and found the body in the pond. This shows that the petitioners committed the crime because it is natural to look for a missing family member. Therefore, the family of the husband of the deceased has much more explaining to do regarding the fact she was living in the matrimonial home. The high court concluded that “Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP. The conduct of the petitioners, as has been submitted by learned APP, does not inspire confidence with regard to their innocence. For reasons aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.  Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed”