ORDER

Heard Mr. Y.Y.Giri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned Advocate, Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Anuj Kumar Srivastava, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. These two petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased. They are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Rajeev Nagar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020 originally registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code but after investigation Police has submitted a chargesheet under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

3. As per the First Information Report (Annexure ‘1’) the marriage between the son of these petitioners and the daughter of the informant was solemnized in the year 2015. The informant admits that after marriage the couple were living happily and the daughter of the informant had no complaint with her Sasural.

4. According to the informant, her son was murdered in January, 2020, thereafter her daughter was living in distress and pain. The informant was told about this by her Sasural people on many occasions whereupon the informant was telling them to get her treated. Allegation is that the Sasural people did not get her treated. On 29.05.2020 at about 7.10 A.M. the petitioner no. 1 gave a telephonic call to the informant to inform that her daughter has committed suicide. The informant admits that she reached Patna with her daughter and son-in-law and thereafter participated in the cremation of the dead body.

She, however, lodged the present F.I.R. on 30.05.2020. The thrust of allegations are contained in a question that if her daughter was in depression why she was not got treated and if she had set herself on fire then why she was not taken to the hospital. She raised a doubt in the F.I.R. that her daughter has burnt herself because of the mental agony caused by her mother-in-law.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that a bare perusal of the First Information Report would show that the daughter of the informant was living happily in her Sasural. There was no demand of dowry and the informant was fully aware of the fact that her daughter was suffering from depression after the murder of her brother. In fact, there is no allegation that these petitioners had burnt the daughter of the informant, the allegation is that as to why she was not got treated for her depression and then if she burnt herself why she was not taken to the hospital.

6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner no. 1 had lodged one F.I.R. with Rajeev Nagar Police Station on 29.05.2020 giving rise to Rajeev Nagar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2020 in which he had explained the circumstances under which the daughter-in-law of petitioner no. 1 was found in burnt condition and while taking her to the hospital she died. In fact, the petitioner no. 1 had also stated that she was in depression and had set herself on fire. This version of petitioner no. 1 is getting support to a large extent from the fardbeyan of the informant which was lodged on the subsequent day.

7. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the husband of the deceased had been taken into judicial custody but after his custody of almost one year he has been granted regular bail by a learned coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 1701 of 2021.

8. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that earlier when these petitioners had applied for pre-arrest bail in the learned court below, they were granted privilege of provisional bail during pendency of the anticipatory bail application, however, on final hearing the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners were rejected vide impugned order dated 14.10.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge XII Court, Patna.

9. In the circumstances stated above, learned Senior Counsel submits that these petitioners who are father-in-law and mother-in-law and against whom there is no specific allegat