Hamida Khatoon vs State Of Bihar

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

Heard Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

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

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Maniyari PS Case No. 99 of 2010 dated 28.07.2010, instituted under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though she is the mother-in-law, but when she along with her husband had moved for anticipatory

bail, the same was granted by a co-ordinate Bench by order dated 15.05.2012 in Cr. Misc. No. 17242 of 2012. However, it was submitted that due to

total lack of communication/information to the petitioner that such order was passed which required her to surrender and take bail before the Court

below within six weeks, the benefit of the said order could not be taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise the Court

may take into consideration the fact that there was absolutely no reason for the petitioner not to surrender and take bail as already she had an order in

her favour and it is not open to reason as to why somebody having a favorable order would not take advantage of the same, which clearly proves that

she was never made aware of such order. Learned counsel submitted that she belongs to a poor family. It was submitted that she is a 73 years old

lady and is mother-in-law of the deceased, who was daughter of the informant. Learned counsel submitted that the death occurred just after two

months from the date of marriage which also indicates that there was no foul play, for the reason that even if it is accepted that the petitioner and her

family members were demanding dowry, it is not believable that they would kill her so soon without giving sufficient time for fulfillment of the demand.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2020. Further, learned counsel submitted that supplementary affidavit has been

filed stating that the husband of the petitioner has also surrendered before the Court below. Learned counsel submitted that the informant himself has

filed petition before the Court below on 03.02.2011 stating that upon information gathered by him, he was satisfied that there was no foul play with

regard to the death of his daughter, as the doctor as well as the owner of the tempo on which she was taken to the doctor, had told him that she died

of illness and, thus, he was not holding the in-laws of her deceased daughter responsible for the same.

Learned APP submitted that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased. However, he did not dispute that though she was granted

anticipatory bail and only because she had not appeared and furnished bail bonds, within six weeks, as was stipulated, she has been arrested and also

that the informant has filed a petition clearly stating that he had talked to the doctor who is said to have treated the deceased and also the owner of the

tempo on which she was taken to the doctor, who had informed him that she died of illness and the petitioner and her family members neither

committed murder nor were responsible for her death.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let the petitioner be released on bail

upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM,

West Muzaffarpur in Maniyari PS Case No. 99 of 2020 subject to the condition that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.