Vinod Ram vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4147 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8930 of 2021
    Arising out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2020 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================

Vinod Ram, aged about 38 years, Male, Son of Yogendra Ram Resident of Village - Mehsaul Ward no. - 3, P. S. - Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the State            :        Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-08-2021

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 petitioner on

09.08.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Sitamarhi PS Case No. 261 of 2020 dated 25.05.2020, instituted

under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The allegation against the petitioner, who is the

brother of the husband of the deceased, and others is of killing her

due to non-fulfilment of demand of motorcycle as dowry.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8930 of 2021 dt.17-08-2021

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it

was his brother, who is the husband of the deceased, who had

informed the informant, who is the brother of the deceased, on

24.05.2020 at 6 PM in the evening that the deceased had run away

from the house and, thereafter, when the informant reached the

matrimonial home, upon search, next morning at 6 AM body of the

deceased was found in a pond on which there was scratch on the

right eye and above the left eye there was swelling. It was

submitted that only on suspicion the present case has been lodged

as there was no occasion for the petitioner to demand a motorcycle

as it could have been used only by the husband of the deceased.

Further, it was submitted that the marriage had taken place about

two years prior to the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the

fact is that that the informant himself accepts that the husband of

the deceased had called to inform that the deceased had gone

away, which indicates that there was some difference between the

couple due to which she had run away, and the petitioner had no

role and further that the deceased had either committed suicide or

could have met with an accident, for the injuries indicate that it

could result from a fall also. Learned counsel submitted that the

post-mortem discloses cardio respiratory failure, without any other

injury found on the body, except for what has been stated in the

FIR, as has been noted in the order of the learned Additional Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8930 of 2021 dt.17-08-2021

Sessions Judge-IV, Sitamarhi in order dated 18.08.2020 in ABP

No. 661 of 2020, by which the prayer of anticipatory bail of the

petitioner was rejected. It was submitted that the petitioner has no

other criminal antecedent.

7. Learned APP submitted that the death occurred within

two years of marriage when the deceased was in the matrimonial

home and, thus, there is a presumption in law of foul play. Further,

it was submitted that the petitioner being the brother of the

husband of the deceased cannot shirk from the responsibility of the

deceased being killed by his brother due to non-fulfilment of

demand for a motorcycle.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the fact

that husband of the deceased had informed the informant about the

deceased having run away indicates that there may have been

some issue between the couple and further that the body being

recovered the next morning from the pond only with one scratch

on the right eye and one lump above the left eye, does not, prima

facie, show that there was involvement of any other person or it

was murder, as it could have resulted from fall also. Thus, taking

an overall view of the matter, the Court is persuaded to allow the

prayer for pre-arrest bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8930 of 2021 dt.17-08-2021

9. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender before

the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner be

released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty

five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in

Sitamarhi PS Case No. 261 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid

down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

and further (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the

petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the

Court and police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to

cancellation of his bail bonds.

10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

                            11.      The      petition     stands      disposed      of      in   the

              aforementioned terms.

                                                         (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
HR/Vikash/-

AFR/NAFR
U
T