Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39698/2016rejected

Shakila Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar

2016-10-28Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39698 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -68 Year- 2016 Thana -KANTI District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Shakila Khatoon Wife of Md. Shamsuddin Resident of VillageKaparpura, PS Kanti, District Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ramchandra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 28-10-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Kanti P.S. Case No. 68 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The brother of the deceased alleged that his sister was married to Md. Nazir in the year 2010 but her husband, father-inlaw and mother-in-law began to torture her, for that a case was lodged in the Court of Hajipur, Vaishali. The accused persons compromised the case and ten days before the occurrence took the sister of the informant to their house and killed her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased. The husband of the deceased filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and the same

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39698 of 2016 (5) dt.28-10-2016 2/2 was pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur. The suit was decreed vide order dated 06.07.2015, but the complaint petition filed by the deceased has not been annexed with the bail petition. There is specific allegation that before ten days of the occurrence the petitioner and other family members compromised the complaint case and took the deceased to their house and thereafter they killed the deceased. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T