Patna High Court
Kapildeo Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 30 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37115 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2020 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Kapildeo Rai, aged 70 years, Male, Son of Late Tengar Rai.
2. Baby Kumari, aged about 22 years, Female, Daughter of Kapildeo Rai.
Both resident of Village- Bariya, PS- Kesaria, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-07-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP')
for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioner no. 1 namely, Kapildeo Rai having died, earlier such
prayer on his behalf had been withdrawn and the matter is
restricted to petitioner no. 2, namely, Baby Kumari.
4. The petitioner no. 2 apprehends arrest in connection
with Kesaria PS Case No. 227 of 2020 dated 05.06.2020,
instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37115 of 2020 dt.30-07-2021
5. The allegation against the petitioner no. 2 and others
is of strangulating the wife of her brother.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she
is the unmarried younger sister of the husband of the deceased and
is not connected with the incident. It was submitted that even if
some foul play was there, it is for the husband of the deceased to
explain, and he is already in custody. Learned counsel submitted
that even the mother of the petitioner no.2 has been granted bail
after being taken into custody. It was submitted that the matter has
also been compromised by the informant in which he has stated
that the accused had no role in the crime. He submitted that the
petitioner no. 2 has no other criminal antecedent.
7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner no. 2 was
the main cause behind the incident as the family of the deceased
was pressuring for Rs. 1 lakh for the marriage expenses of
petitioner no. 2. Further, it was submitted that in the postmortem,
it has been found that there was black mark on the neck and there
was blood oozing from the nose and the opinion was that she was
strangulated. It was further submitted that during inquest, black
mark has been found on the right hand of the deceased also. Thus,
it was submitted that the petitioner no. 2, who was very much
present in the house when the occurrence took place, was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37115 of 2020 dt.30-07-2021
instrumental and party to the crime as the deceased could not have
been strangulated by one person alone and the deceased being a
lady, it is but obvious that the ladies of the house would have
committed the crime and most importantly, the mother of the
petitioner no. 2 has confessed that because the deceased was
working, her free movements was not liked by the petitioner's
family due to which she was strangulated and killed. It was further
submitted that a lady having four children would not have
committed suicide, both in view of the finding in the postmortem
which clearly states that it is a case of strangulation and not
hanging and further, the deceased being mother of four children,
could not have taken her life leaving behind her minor children.
With regard to the compromise, learned APP submitted that the
very reading of the same clearly shows that a clean chit has not
been given to the accused and rather it has been said that taking
into account the future of the children, the compromise was being
made, which clearly indicates that the informant had not taken the
stand that the petitioner no. 2 and her family members were not
involved in the murder of the victim, and thus, it is obvious that
the parties have compromised for other reasons. Moreover, it was
submitted that the offence relating to murder being non-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37115 of 2020 dt.30-07-2021
compoundable, such compromise may not be of much importance
and relevance, especially at the present stage.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner no. 2.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
