Sarita Kumari @ Sarita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17585 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2018 Thana- MAHKAR District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Sarita Kumari @ Sarita Devi, Wife of Ritesh Yadav 2.

Devanand Yadav Son of Mukhali Yadav Both are residents of Village - Nadara, P.S.- Mahkar, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Naresh Ray For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Mahkar P.S.Case No. 166 of 2018 registered under Sections 302,201 and 120B of the Indian penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioners is that the informant Shobha Devi got information on 28.08.2018 that her sister-inlaw has been killed by her in-laws and dead body has been concealed somewhere else. When informant reached village, she found that matrimonial home of the deceased was locked and nobody of her family members was present. The reason behind the incident, as alleged in the FIR, is that husband of deceased ,namely, Devanand Yadav i.e., petitioner no. 2, was having illicit relationship with petitioner no. 1 i.e., Sarita

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17585 of 2019(3) dt.25-06-2019 2/2 Kumari.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no specific allegation against petitioner no. 1 i.e., Sarita Devi, of torturing and assaulting the deceased and only allegation is that she was having illicit relationship with the husband of the deceased i.e., petitioner no. 2. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the case diary, witnesses have stated the fact about illicit relationship and that is the reason behind the present occurrence. After having heard both sides and after perusal of the material available on record, I am satisfied that the petitioners did not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail inasmuch as the petitioners have been named in the FIR with the allegation that deceased was killed and dead body was concealed and when informant arrived at village of the deceased, nobody of the family members including the petitioners was present. Accordingly, present application is rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sujit/- U T