Punam Kumari vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2093 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34668 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS Case No.-6 Year-2020 Thana- BHAGWANPUR HAT District- Siwan
     ======================================================

1. Punam Kumari, aged about 23 years, Female, Daughter of Late Laxman Thakur.

2. Rajnish Kumar @ Rajnish Thakur, aged about 21 years, Male.

3. Pintu Thakur @ Pintu Kumar Thakur, aged about 18 years, Male.

Both sons of Late Laxman Thakur.

4. Kishora Kuwar, aged about 55 years, Female, Wife of Late Laxman Thakur.

All are residents of Village-Takath Kauriya, PS-Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.

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

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-05-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he

may be permitted to add the alias name of petitioner no. 2 in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34668 of 2020 dt.25-05-2021

cause title and it may be read as Rajnish Kumar @ Rajnish

Thakur.

4. Prayer allowed.

5. Let, in the cause title, in the name of the petitioner no.

2, after Rajnish Kumar, the alias Rajnish Thakur be added.

6. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Bhagwanpur Hat PS Case No. 06 of 2020 dated 07.01.2020,

instituted under Sections 304B/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

7. The petitioner no. 1 is the unmarried Nanad (sister-in-

law); petitioners no. 2 and 3 are Dewars (brothers-in-law) and

petitioner no. 4 is the mother-in-law of the deceased, and the

allegation is that they had killed the deceased by strangulating her.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in

the FIR, which has been lodged by the brother of the deceased,

with ulterior motive, the year of marriage has not been mentioned,

which took place in the year 2010, whereas the incident had

occurred on 05.01.2020 i.e., almost after 10 years and, thus, the

very lodging of the FIR under Section 304-B is totally erroneous.

It was submitted that even otherwise, it is quite unbelievable that

for 10 years, right from the beginning, there would be demand of

motorcycle and even if it is so assumed, at least the petitioners no.

1, 2 and 3 were aged only 13 years, 11 years and 8 years at the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34668 of 2020 dt.25-05-2021

relevant time and could not have had any role in such demand. It

was submitted that if such an extreme step was to be taken by the

entire family, they would not have waited for 10 years and

furthermore, that there was a girl child aged 5 years and, thus, all

the more they would not wait for a child to be born and then after

5 years, take such step, knowing fully well that a young child

needs a caretaker and, thus, there was no occasion for them to kill

the mother. Leaned counsel submitted that the police after

investigation did not find it a case of murder and, thus, charge-

sheet was submitted only under Sections 306/34 of the Indian

Penal Code and the Court has also taken cognizance under such

sections. Learned counsel submitted that even if it is assumed that

there was any role of any other person in the suicide, it is the

husband who has to explain as he was living with the deceased

and further that even the demand of motorcycle obviously was

only for the benefit of the husband and the other family members

i.e., the petitioners have no concern with that. Learned counsel

submitted that the post-mortem report, copy of which has been

brought on record, does not disclose any ante-mortem injury on

any part of the body, except for there being a ligature mark on the

neck and death is said to have occurred due to asphyxia caused by

hanging. Thus, it was submitted, that nobody else was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34668 of 2020 dt.25-05-2021

instrumental in the hanging of the deceased as otherwise there

would have been some mark on the body to indicate resistance,

which has not been found. It was submitted that the petitioners do

not have any criminal antecedent. It was further submitted that the

husband of the petitioners is in custody.

9. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners being in

the house have a role in creating such a situation where the

deceased was forced to take the extreme step, even if it is believed

that the same was a case of suicide and, thus, they cannot plead

innocence. However, he could not controvert that no ante-mortem

injury on any part of the body has been found. He submitted that

there is a five years old girl child and the petitioners have to take

responsibility so that she is not tortured or no wrong happens to

her and her safety and wellbeing is assured.

10. On this, learned counsel for the petitioners

intervened and submitted that the petitioners take full

responsibility for the wellbeing and proper upbringing and

education of the daughter of the deceased and that they shall give

full love and affection to the child so that she does not miss her

mother.

11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34668 of 2020 dt.25-05-2021

event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six

weeks from today, the petitioners be released on bail upon

furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Bhagwanpur Hat

PS Case No. 06 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

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

police/prosecution and the Court. Failure to co-operate shall lead

to cancellation of their bail bonds.

12. Further, as has been assumed by learned counsel for

the petitioners, they shall also be responsible for ensuring the

wellbeing and proper education and upbringing of the daughter of

the deceased and that she would be given her due place in the

family and would also be given her due share in all the movable

and immovable assets of her father.

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

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

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34668 of 2020 dt.25-05-2021

14. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T