Simpi Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32012 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -257 Year- 2015 Thana -DEEPNAGAR District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Simpi Kumari daughter of Suresh Yadav, Resident of Village Bijwanpur, Police Station- Deep Nagar, District- Nalanda, At Present village- Kali Bigha, Kaiter, P.S- Giriak, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar - 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Deepnagar P.S. Case No. 257/2015 G.R. No. 2737/2015, registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant father of the deceased alleged that on 14.07.2015 he got information that his daughter was missing from the house of her husband. The informant further alleged that he came to the house of son-in-law Jitendra Kumar, but he did not come in front of him, but after sometime he came and disclosed about the quarrel between them. The husband and in-laws were subjecting his daughter Pinky Kumari to all sorts of torture. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32012 of 2016 (3) dt.27-09-2016 2/2 who is sister-in-law of the deceased, is not named in the F.I.R. During the course of investigation, it has come that in-laws and husband of the deceased assaulted her and the deceased fled away from the house of her husband. Thereafter, her dead-body was recovered from the railway track. It has also come that the petitioner was also present in the house.

It appears that the petitioner although married sister-inlaw of the deceased, but during the course of investigation it has come that petitioner was also present on the day in the house of her brother and petitioner and others assaulted the deceased who later on died.

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.) Vinita/- U T