Arti Kumari vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satya Nand

Shukla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Maner PS Case No. 589 of 2016 dated 30.12.2016, instituted under Sections 498A, 304B and

120/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner, who is the unmarried sister of the husband of the deceased, and her other family members, is of killing the

deceased and her three minor children, by putting them on fire.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that besides being the unmarried sister, the fact that three minor children were also killed goes to show

that there could not have been any role of the family members as they may have had differences with the sister of the informant, but there could not

have been any dispute or enmity with the minor children of her brother. It was submitted that due to dispute between the couple, the sister of the

informant had committed suicide along with her three children in a fit of rage. Learned counsel submitted that the husband has also been enlarged on

bail after spending some time in custody. It was submitted that the father of the petitioner, who was the father-in-law of the deceased, Rajeshwar Rai,

has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 03.03.2020 in Cr. Misc. No. 9007 of 2020. It was submitted

that the petitioner, besides being a lady, has no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that the body of two children and the skeleton of the lady were fished out from the river whereas the

body of the third child has not been recovered and the postmortem shows that death was due to burning. It was further submitted that at the place of

occurrence, a bed has been found on which the deceased were burnt to death and thereafter, the body was thrown in the river to destroy the

evidence. It was submitted that witnesses have supported the prosecution version and the petitioner was in the house as she was unmarried when

such incident happened and most importantly, the father of the petitioner was granted bail on the ground that he was made accused only after ten

months. However, the petitioner, though not specifically named in the FIR, which states about a sister of the husband of the deceased, but obviously

refers to her as she was the only sister living in the matrimonial house of the deceased and the circumstances also go to prove that the petitioner was

involved in the heinous crime.

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.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.