Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17039/2017dismissed

Meera Kumari Devi @ Meera Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-19Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17039 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -173 Year- 2016 Thana -JHANJHARPUR District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Meera Kumari ( Devi ) @ Meera Devi, W/o Kanhaiya Raut, Resident of Village- Poorani Bazar Machhahatta Chouk, P.S.- Jhanjharpur DistMadhubani. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mrs. Shalini Raut, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. None. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-07-2017 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel, assisted by Smt. Shalini Raut, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the State, whereas Sri Ratnakar Jha, learned counsel for the informant is present. The petitioner, wife of elder brother of husband of the deceased, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No.173/2016 registered for the offence under Sections 304(B)/315/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner and husband of the deceased were residing separately. The petitioner was residing on the first floor, whereas deceased was residing separately with her

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17039 of 2017 (5) dt.19-07-2017 2/2 husband on 2nd floor of the building. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is mentally ill and also paralyzed and, as such, this Court may take lenient view. Considering the allegation made in the F.I.R. as well as offence, which suggests that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the year 2014 and death occurred within two years from the marriage, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a case for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T