Godawari Devi vs State Of Bihar

The matter has heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID 19 pandemic.

Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Madan Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereafter

referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Sahiyara PS Case No. 54 of 2019 dated 06.06.2019, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 494,

498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The allegation against the petitioners and another is of torture for demand of dowry, assault and ousting from the matrimonial home.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, respectively, of the

informant. It was submitted that they have no role in any matrimonial dispute between the parties. It was submitted that the son of the petitioners no.1

and 2 is ready to keep her.

On a query of the Court as to what steps they have taken for getting the informant back in the matrimonial home, learned counsel could not give

any reply. On a further query of the Court as to what steps they have taken for the welfare of their grandchild, as is indicated in the FIR itself where

the informant has stated that she was pregnant, learned counsel, again, had no answer.

Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that the conduct of the petitioners is sufficient to indicate that the informant has been tortured for

dowry. It was further submitted that there is allegation that the husband of the informant has remarried and there is no denial in the petition of this

fact. It was submitted that without active approval of the petitioners, the husband of the informant could not have remarried. It was submitted that

witnesses have supported the allegations.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the specific allegation in

the FIR with regard to demand of dowry and torture as well as the fact that second marriage of the husband of the informant has not been denied in

the application as also there being nothing to indicate what step was taken, especially by the petitioners no. 1 and 2 to get the informant back in the

matrimonial home, more so, when she was pregnant, and the allegations have been corroborated during investigation, as has also been noted in the

order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in ABP No.1173 of 2019 dated 25.09.2019, by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners was

rejected, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

The interim protection given to the petitioners by order dated 18.02.2020 stands vacated.