Mustari Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44262 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2019 Thana- CHAKAND District- Gaya ====================================================== MUSTARI KHATOON WIFE OF LATE MD. ARIF RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SHADIPUR, P.S.- CHAKAND, DISTRICT- GAYA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Arvind Kr. Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 14-09-2022 Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, learned APP for the State.

This is the second attempt for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29944/2020 on merit. The petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased who was married to the son of the petitioner about 1 and 1⁄2 years back and within the aforesaid period of marriage, she has been killed for want of dowry in her matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44262 of 2022(2) dt.14-09-2022 2/2 marriage was Golat (exchange marriage) between brother of the deceased and the sister of the husband of the deceased. He further submits that the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased was granted bail by this Court and brother-in-law has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is next submitted that the changed circumstance in this matter is that the husband of the deceased is now in jail.

Regards being had to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the fact, I come to the conclusion that instead of filing regular bail application after rejection of the anticipatory bail by this Court about 1 and 1⁄2 years back, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail and tried to re-argue the matter which was already considered by this Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner for the second time. The same is, hereby, rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T