Mere marks of hanging on the body of the victim don’t mean that it was a suicide: High Court Of Patna
The petitioners were alleged of killing the informant’s daughter or their Daughter-in-Law. The FIR of the same was done by the village people and police on investigating found that the death happened due to hanging. The Court in the light of all facts and circumstances allowed the plea of the bail to the petitioners. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter of Ranjeet Kumar Mahto v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No.39831 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case were that petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with the case instituted under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was alleged to have killed their daughter-in-law/informant’s daughter. The learned Counsel of the Petitioner submitted that it was the mother-in-law who filed the FIR. It was submitted that the falsity of the allegation would be clear from the fact that it cannot be believed that a person who has committed a crime would ring the informant to say that they had committed the crime of killing the daughter of the informant. 

The Learned Counsel of the State contended that the FIR was done by some villagers and the police had come to the home of the petitioners on their own. It was further submitted that in the post-mortem only ligature mark has been found on the neck which indicates death by asphyxia due to hanging and no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. 

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, in view of the fact that the deceased was brought by her husband a the day prior to the incident and the post-mortem report not disclosing any injury on the body except for ligature mark on the neck which shows death by hanging as also the stand taken by petitioners no. 1 and 2 that they are working at Midnapur, in support of which a certificate has been granted by the said transport company, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.” The petition was disposed of on the mentioned terms and the petitioners were granted bail.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 
The facts of the case were that petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with the case instituted under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was alleged to have killed their daughter-in-law/informant’s daughter. The learned Counsel of the Petitioner submitted that it was the mother-in-law who filed the FIR. It was submitted that the falsity of the allegation would be clear from the fact that it cannot be believed that a person who has committed a crime would ring the informant to say that they had committed the crime of killing the daughter of the informant. 

The Learned Counsel of the State contended that the FIR was done by some villagers and the police had come to the home of the petitioners on their own. It was further submitted that in the post-mortem only ligature mark has been found on the neck which indicates death by asphyxia due to hanging and no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. 

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, in view of the fact that the deceased was brought by her husband a the day prior to the incident and the post-mortem report not disclosing any injury on the body except for ligature mark on the neck which shows death by hanging as also the stand taken by petitioners no. 1 and 2 that they are working at Midnapur, in support of which a certificate has been granted by the said transport company, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.” The petition was disposed of on the mentioned terms and the petitioners were granted bail.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The facts of the case were that petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with the case instituted under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was alleged to have killed their daughter-in-law/informant’s daughter. The learned Counsel of the Petitioner submitted that it was the mother-in-law who filed the FIR. It was submitted that the falsity of the allegation would be clear from the fact that it cannot be believed that a person who has committed a crime would ring the informant to say that they had committed the crime of killing the daughter of the informant.  
The Learned Counsel of the State contended that the FIR was done by some villagers and the police had come to the home of the petitioners on their own. It was further submitted that in the post-mortem only ligature mark has been found on the neck which indicates death by asphyxia due to hanging and no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased. 

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, in view of the fact that the deceased was brought by her husband a the day prior to the incident and the post-mortem report not disclosing any injury on the body except for ligature mark on the neck which shows death by hanging as also the stand taken by petitioners no. 1 and 2 that they are working at Midnapur, in support of which a certificate has been granted by the said transport company, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.” The petition was disposed of on the mentioned terms and the petitioners were granted bail.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Learned Counsel of the State contended that the FIR was done by some villagers and the police had come to the home of the petitioners on their own. It was further submitted that in the post-mortem only ligature mark has been found on the neck which indicates death by asphyxia due to hanging and no other injury has been found on the body of the deceased.  
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, in view of the fact that the deceased was brought by her husband a the day prior to the incident and the post-mortem report not disclosing any injury on the body except for ligature mark on the neck which shows death by hanging as also the stand taken by petitioners no. 1 and 2 that they are working at Midnapur, in support of which a certificate has been granted by the said transport company, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.” The petition was disposed of on the mentioned terms and the petitioners were granted bail.
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, in view of the fact that the deceased was brought by her husband a the day prior to the incident and the post-mortem report not disclosing any injury on the body except for ligature mark on the neck which shows death by hanging as also the stand taken by petitioners no. 1 and 2 that they are working at Midnapur, in support of which a certificate has been granted by the said transport company, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.” The petition was disposed of on the mentioned terms and the petitioners were granted bail.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.398321 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 197 Year 2020 Thana MOHIUDDIN NAGAR District Ranjeet Kumar Mahto @ Ranjeet Mahto age about 40 years4. Kiran Devi Wife of Late Rambali Mahto age about 65 yearsfor the State 4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Mohiuddin Nagar PS Case No. 1920 dated 16.10.2020 instituted under Sections 304(B) 34 of the Indian Penal Code Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.398321 dt.06 09 2021 5. The allegation against the petitioners who are the in laws of the deceased is that they were party to the killing of the daughter of the informant who was the wife of one of the sons of petitioner no. 4 namely Dashrath Mahto not a 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the FIR itself it has been stated that it was the petitioner no. 4 the mother in law who had informed with regard to killing of the daughter of the informant. Learned counsel submitted that falsity of the allegation would be clear from the fact that it cannot be believed that a person who has committed a crime would ring the informant to say that they had committed the crime of killing the daughter of the informant. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise there was no intention of any foul play because it was not the informant who had intimated the police and rather the police had come there and in the FIR also it has been stated that some villagers had informed the police Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 reside at Midnapur in the State of West Bengal and are truck drivers for Amar Transport and both of them as well as the petitioner no. 3 who is the wife of petitioner no. 1 were living at Midnapur on the date of the incident. Learned counsel submitted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.398321 dt.06 09 2021 that the husband of the deceased is in custody. It was further submitted that in the post mortem only ligature mark has been found on the neck which indicates death by asphyxia due to hanging and no other injury has been found on the body of the 7. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners being the relatives of the husband of the deceased cannot claim to be 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in view of the fact that the deceased was brought by her husband a day prior to the incident and the post mortem report not disclosing any injury on the body except for ligature mark on the neck which shows death by hanging as also the stand taken by petitioners no. 1 and 2 that they are working at Midnapur in support of which a certificate has been granted by the said transport company the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre arrest bail 9. Accordingly 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 each with two sureties of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.398321 dt.06 09 2021 like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM IV Samastipur in Mohiuddin Nagar PS Case No. 197 of 2020 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners andthat the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions 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 11. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J