Lalita Devi vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Dhanarua PS Case No. 542 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019, instituted under Section 304(B)/34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased, who is alleged to have been done to death by her and her family members after assaulting her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that death occurred on 30.12.2019, whereas there was separation between the husband of the

deceased who was the younger son of the petitioner and the elder son on 04.05.2017 itself and the property having been divided, the petitioner was

living with the elder son at Jehanabad since then. It was submitted that even on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was not present at the house and

whatever happened was between the deceased and her husband. It was submitted that the husband of the deceased i.e., the younger son of the

petitioner is in custody. Learned counsel submitted that the wife of the elder brother namely, Archana Devi @ Aparna Devi, who has also been made

an accused has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench by order dated 24.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32116 of 2020. It was

submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Earlier the Court had asked the learned APP to obtain the up-to-date legible copy of case diary and a report as to whether there has been

separation with regard to the ancestral house of the petitioner and whether on the fateful day, she was present in the house where death occurred as

also the inquest and postmortem reports.

Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that nothing has come to indicate that there was any separation and rather it has come that the

petitioner and her husband were at the house when death occurred. It was submitted that the injuries on the wrist and the head have been found on

the deceased and in fact without informing the informant the body was being taken for being burnt and only when the informant came with police the

body was seized and postmortem conducted. It was submitted that the petitioner being the guardian of the house, being mother-in-law of the deceased,

cannot be said to be innocent and she also cannot abdicate her responsibility. Further, it was submitted that a plain reading of the so-called partition

between the parties reveals that absolutely not even one detail of any property has been mentioned and only a vague statement has been made that

there is a partition. It was submitted that such document clearly indicates that it is an afterthought and a created document since there cannot be

partition without actually mentioning the details of the property and the proportion of the same allotted to the concerned parties. It was submitted that

the same is only a sham document as it only states that there has been partition and the elder brother and his family is living at Jehanabad, which can

in no way be considered to be a partition agreement.

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 application stands dismissed.

Interim protection given to the petitioner under order dated 05.04.2021 stands vacated.