The Court declined to grant pre-arrest bail as petitioner no. 2 was guilty of strangulating the deceased: High court of Patna  
The petitioner no.2 was arrested under Sections 302, Indian penal code, “Punishment for murder”, section 34IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This is in connection with Kesaria PS Case No. 227 of 2020 dated 05.06.2020 This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 30th of July 2021 in the case of Kapildeo Rai versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No. 37115 of 2020, Mr. Naresh Chandra Represented as the advocate for the petitioner no.2  and Mr. Anuj Kumar represented as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, petitioner no.2 along with others were accused of strangulating her sister-in-law (the wife of her brother). The counsel representing the petitioner held that the petitioner is the unmarried younger sister of the husband of the deceased and she is not connected with this incident. The husband of the deceased is required to explain the incident and has been taken into custody, not his sister, even the mother of the petitioner was granted bail after being held behind the bars, he further held that even the informant claimed that the accused had no role in the crime and the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. However, the additional public prosecutor held that the petitioner was the main reason for this crime, since the family was coercing the deceased to provide for Rs.1 lakh doe the marriage expenses of petitioner no.2, according to the post-mortem it was found that there was a black mark on the neck and blood was oozing from the nice which clearly indicates she was strangulated. On further investigation there was a black mark found on the right hand of the deceased and the petitioner was present during the occurrence of this crime and was a vital party to the crime because the deceased could not have been strangulated by one person alone and was done with help of the petitioner and even the mother confessed that the family was not happy with the deceased working, the lady had four children and there is no possibility of her committing suicide, and leaving her minor children behind. The APP further submitted that a clean chit has not been given to the accused and taking into consideration the future of the children and the family members of petitioner no.2 were clearly involved in murder, therefore it is a non-compoundable offense.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 371120 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. Baby Kumari aged about 22 years Female Daughter of Kapildeo Rai. Both resident of Village Bariya PS Kesaria District East Champaran The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma Advocate Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ... Opposite Party s 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.371120 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.371120 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.371120 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