Mira Devi @ Meera Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2096 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34640 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS Case No.-176 Year-2020 Thana- RAXAUL District- East Champaran
     ======================================================

1. Mira Devi @ Meera Devi Wife of Om Prakash Sah @ Om Prakash Prasad Resident of Village - Kanana, P.S.- Raxaul, District - East Champaran, Motihari

2. Om Prakash Sah @ Om Prakash Prasad Son of Shivnath Sah Resident of Village - Kanana, P.S.- Raxaul, District - East Champaran, Motihari

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

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

     For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar with
                                     Mr. Kundan Rathore, Advocates
     For the State           :       Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-05-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, learned counsel along

with Mr. Kundan Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

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

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Raxaul PS Case No. 176 of 2020 dated 22.05.2020, instituted

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

4. The allegation against the petitioners, who are the

mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively, of the deceased, is

of killing her.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34640 of 2020 dt.25-05-2021

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

they have no role in any wrong doing and even the death was due

to natural causes. It was submitted that during investigation, the

police have found that the deceased was suffering from mental

illness and many other issues which would indicate that the

petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and that even

the post-mortem report was collusive. Learned counsel submitted

that they have filed supplementary affidavit to show that the

deceased was not in a fit mental condition for which she was

treated at various places. It was further submitted that on the

complaint made by the petitioners' side, the doctor, who had

conducted post-mortem, was relieved from performing post-

mortem and transferred somewhere else. Learned counsel

submitted that in the year 2008 itself, the petitioners had got a

separate ration card, which would be clear from the fact that in the

ration card of the petitioners, the name of the husband of the

deceased, who is the son of the petitioners, is not present, which

indicates that he was not living with the petitioners. It was further

submitted that the petitioners' side has represented both to the

Civil Surgeon as well as the District Magistrate against the

conduct of the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem, and

enquiry was conducted. It was submitted that the petitioners have Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34640 of 2020 dt.25-05-2021

been falsely implicated. Learned counsel submitted that the

petitioners have no role, and even if there was some foul play as

they were separate from the deceased and her husband, they

cannot be held responsible in any way whatever happened.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that from the

inquest report as well as the post-mortem report, it would be clear

that there is only strangulation mark found on the neck and no

other ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased, which

clearly indicates that there was no complicity of any other person,

for the reason, that if a person is forcibly strangulated/hanged,

there would be some resistance at least and for that there would be

ante-mortem marks on the body disclosing that, but both at the

inquest time as well as during post-mortem, the doctor has not

found any such mark on the body. It was submitted that coupled

with the fact that the petitioners are the parents of the husband,

who was also there, death having occurred clearly indicates that

the petitioners have no role in the same and most importantly, the

husband of the deceased i.e., the son of the petitioner is in judicial

custody, being arrested on the same day.

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

allegation against the doctor prima facie appears to be incorrect as

far as finding of death due to strangulation has been recorded for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34640 of 2020 dt.25-05-2021

the reason that even in the inquest report, which was prepared and

signed by different persons, not connected to the doctor, there is

clear finding that the death had occurred due to strangulation.

However, he did not controvert the fact that the inquest report and

the post-mortem report does not disclose any other ante-mortem

injury on the body except for the ligature mark on the neck.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

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 SDJM, Raxaul, Motihari (East Champaran) in Raxaul PS

Case No. 176 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.

9. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34640 of 2020 dt.25-05-2021

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners.

10. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T