Lalita Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2043 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33904 of 2020
      Arising out of PS. Case No.-542 Year-2019 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna
======================================================

Lalita Devi, (female), aged about 70 years, Wife of Rajballam Yadav, Resident of Village - Madahipar, P.S.- Dhanarua, District - Patna.

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

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

For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State           :        Ms. Renu Kumari, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-05-2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned Additional Public

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

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Dhanarua PS Case No. 542 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019, instituted

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

4. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased,

who is alleged to have been done to death by her and her family

members after assaulting her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

death occurred on 30.12.2019, whereas there was separation

between the husband of the deceased who was the younger son of

the petitioner and the elder son on 04.05.2017 itself and the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33904 of 2020 dt.19-05-2021

property having been divided, the petitioner was living with the

elder son at Jehanabad since then. It was submitted that even on

the date of occurrence, the petitioner was not present at the house

and whatever happened was between the deceased and her

husband. It was submitted that the husband of the deceased i.e., the

younger son of the petitioner is in custody. Learned counsel

submitted that the wife of the elder brother namely, Archana Devi

@ Aparna Devi, who has also been made an accused has been

granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench by order dated

24.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32116 of 2020. It was

submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

6. Earlier the Court had asked the learned APP to obtain

the up-to-date legible copy of case diary and a report as to whether

there has been separation with regard to the ancestral house of the

petitioner and whether on the fateful day, she was present in the

house where death occurred as also the inquest and postmortem

reports.

7. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that

nothing has come to indicate that there was any separation and

rather it has come that the petitioner and her husband were at the

house when death occurred. It was submitted that the injuries on

the wrist and the head have been found on the deceased and in fact Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33904 of 2020 dt.19-05-2021

without informing the informant the body was being taken for

being burnt and only when the informant came with police the

body was seized and postmortem conducted. It was submitted that

the petitioner being the guardian of the house, being mother-in-law

of the deceased, cannot be said to be innocent and she also cannot

abdicate her responsibility. Further, it was submitted that a plain

reading of the so-called partition between the parties reveals that

absolutely not even one detail of any property has been mentioned

and only a vague statement has been made that there is a partition.

It was submitted that such document clearly indicates that it is an

afterthought and a created document since there cannot be

partition without actually mentioning the details of the property

and the proportion of the same allotted to the concerned parties. It

was submitted that the same is only a sham document as it only

states that there has been partition and the elder brother and his

family is living at Jehanabad, which can in no way be considered

to be a partition agreement.

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.

9. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33904 of 2020 dt.19-05-2021

10. Interim protection given to the petitioner under order

dated 05.04.2021 stands vacated.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Vikash/-

AFR/NAFR U T