Usha Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46170 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2023 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar ====================================================== USHA DEVI WIFE OF KAUSHALENDRA KARUNAKAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DHAMKAUL, P.S. - PIPRAHI, DISTRICT - SHEOHAR ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Soni Srivastava, Advocate Mr.Mukund Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ahmad Ali ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 13-09-2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Piprahi P.S. Case No. 59 of 2023 dated 07.04.2023 registered for the offence under Section 302 / 34 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the First Information Report the petitioner along with other co-accused persons killed the daughter of the informant and tried to burn the deceased in the house itself and upon being unsuccessful the deceased was taken for cremation and when the informant came to know about it, the dead body was taken into custody by the Police and sent for post-mortem. It has further been alleged that the petitioner and other family members used to taunt the deceased for not bearing a male child.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46170 of 2024(5) dt.13-09-2024 2/2
4. Ms. Soni Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady, who happens to be the mother-in-law of the deceased. However, she submits that this is second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner inasmuch as earlier Cr. Misc. No. 49450 of 2023 filed for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected by order dated 11.08.2023. She further submits that the co-accused father-in-law, brotherin-law (devar) in Cr. Misc. No. 55557 / 2023 and husband in Cr. Misc. No. 84951 / 2023 have been granted regular bail (Annexures- 7 & 8 respectively) and during the trial the informant has been declared hostile.
5. Be that as it may, this is not a ground for re-consideration of the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail for the second time. The same stands rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T