The petitioner alleged of killing and concealing the facts and death of the deceased denied bail along with his parents: High Court of Patna
Alleged of killing the deceased the petitioner was accused of demanding dowry as well. The petitioner being the guardian of the deceased tried to conceal the facts and save their son. These formed sufficient grounds for not granting the pre-arrest bail by the Court. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Rajdevo Mahto and Others v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36545 of 2020].  The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest under Section 304B, 201/34 of the Indian penal Code. For the non-fulfillment of the Demands made by the Father-in-Law and Mother-In-Law, they are accused of killing the deceased. 
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are the father-in-law and mother-in-law and were separate from their son i.e., the husband of the deceased. It was further submitted that the husband of the deceased is in custody. When the Court specifically asked learned counsel for the petitioners whether the son was residing in a separate house at this point, he did not respond. When asked why the body of a young woman who died in the matrimonial house where the petitioners also lived was cremated without telling her relatives or the police, and what the cause of death was, counsel, once again, had no explanation.

Even learned counsel was unable to respond to the Court’s question on what it meant for the petitioners to be separated from their kid and whether he was living in a separate house. There was no information on the cause of death or why relatives were not told. 

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the laws being the guardian of the house and deceased didn’t inform anyone about the mishap itself gives the hint of them being a party to the crime and even if the same was done by their son, they are liable for concealing death and facts for protecting their son. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned APP. The petitioners being father-in-law and mother-in-law and there being no answer forthcoming that they were living in a separate house and also the reason why the relatives of the deceased were not informed and further, that what was the cause of death for a young girl, who died within seven years of marriage, the Court, upon due consideration, is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.” the petitioners were denied bail and matter was disposed of on the mentioned terms.
Click here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are the father-in-law and mother-in-law and were separate from their son i.e., the husband of the deceased. It was further submitted that the husband of the deceased is in custody. When the Court specifically asked learned counsel for the petitioners whether the son was residing in a separate house at this point, he did not respond. When asked why the body of a young woman who died in the matrimonial house where the petitioners also lived was cremated without telling her relatives or the police, and what the cause of death was, counsel, once again, had no explanation. 
Even learned counsel was unable to respond to the Court’s question on what it meant for the petitioners to be separated from their kid and whether he was living in a separate house. There was no information on the cause of death or why relatives were not told. 

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the laws being the guardian of the house and deceased didn’t inform anyone about the mishap itself gives the hint of them being a party to the crime and even if the same was done by their son, they are liable for concealing death and facts for protecting their son. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned APP. The petitioners being father-in-law and mother-in-law and there being no answer forthcoming that they were living in a separate house and also the reason why the relatives of the deceased were not informed and further, that what was the cause of death for a young girl, who died within seven years of marriage, the Court, upon due consideration, is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.” the petitioners were denied bail and matter was disposed of on the mentioned terms.
Click here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 Even learned counsel was unable to respond to the Court’s question on what it meant for the petitioners to be separated from their kid and whether he was living in a separate house. There was no information on the cause of death or why relatives were not told.  
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the laws being the guardian of the house and deceased didn’t inform anyone about the mishap itself gives the hint of them being a party to the crime and even if the same was done by their son, they are liable for concealing death and facts for protecting their son. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned APP. The petitioners being father-in-law and mother-in-law and there being no answer forthcoming that they were living in a separate house and also the reason why the relatives of the deceased were not informed and further, that what was the cause of death for a young girl, who died within seven years of marriage, the Court, upon due consideration, is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.” the petitioners were denied bail and matter was disposed of on the mentioned terms.
Click here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the laws being the guardian of the house and deceased didn’t inform anyone about the mishap itself gives the hint of them being a party to the crime and even if the same was done by their son, they are liable for concealing death and facts for protecting their son.  
The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned APP. The petitioners being father-in-law and mother-in-law and there being no answer forthcoming that they were living in a separate house and also the reason why the relatives of the deceased were not informed and further, that what was the cause of death for a young girl, who died within seven years of marriage, the Court, upon due consideration, is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.” the petitioners were denied bail and matter was disposed of on the mentioned terms.
Click here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned APP. The petitioners being father-in-law and mother-in-law and there being no answer forthcoming that they were living in a separate house and also the reason why the relatives of the deceased were not informed and further, that what was the cause of death for a young girl, who died within seven years of marriage, the Court, upon due consideration, is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.” the petitioners were denied bail and matter was disposed of on the mentioned terms.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.365420 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 238 Year 2018 Thana ADAPUR District East Champaran Rajdevo Mahto @ Rajdev Mahto aged about 61 yearsson of late Banshi Mahto Rajkali Devi aged about 57 years wife of Rajdevo Mahto Rajdev Mahto Both resident of village Gamhariya Khurd P.S. Adapur District East ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III Advocate Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap APP ... Opposite Party s Date : 22 06 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Adapur PS Case No. 2318 dated 23.08.2018 instituted under Sections 304 B 201 34 of the Indian Penal Code 4. The petitioners who are father in law and mother in law of the deceased are accused of killing her due to non Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365420 dt.22 06 2021 fulfillment of demand of dowry. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are the father in law and mother in law and were separate from their son i.e. the husband of the deceased. It was further submitted that the husband of the deceased is in custody 6. At this juncture when the Court put a specific query to learned counsel for the petitioners that whether the son was living in a separate house he did not reply. Further on a query of the Court that a young woman has died in the matrimonial home in which the petitioners were also living why the body was cremated without information to her relatives and without informing the police and what was the cause of death learned counsel again had no answer. Even the query of the Court as to what was meant by the petitioners being separate from their son and whether he was living in a separate house learned counsel could not answer. Even the cause of death or the reason why relatives were not informed was not forthcoming. 7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners being the father in law and mother in law i.e. the guardians and living in the same household cannot shirk their responsibility from the death as it occurred in their house and it was their duty to ensure that if there was no foul play both the authorities as Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365420 dt.22 06 2021 well as the relatives of the deceased were informed so that they could come and take part in cremation which has not been done. It was submitted that this itself is a pointer that the petitioners were party to the crime and even if it is assumed that it may have been perpetrated only by the son but they are equally responsible for having concealed the death and protecting their son. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned APP. The petitioners being father in law and mother in law and there being no answer forthcoming that they were living in a separate house and also the reason why the relatives of the deceased were not informed and further that what was the cause of death for a young girl who died within seven years of marriage the Court upon due consideration is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners 9. Accordingly the application stands dismissed 10. However in view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners it is observed that if the petitioners appear before the Court below and pray for bail the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365420 dt.22 06 2021 without being prejudiced by the present order. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 