Samina Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58553 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2019 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== SAMINA KHATOON Wife of Alam Mian, Resident of Village - Barkurwa, P.S. - Paharpur, District - East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Madhurendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyadeo Singh Yadav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Paharpur P.S. Case No.130 of 2019 registered under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The maternal uncle of the deceased disclosed that he got her niece married with Perwez Alam on 10.03.2019 but immediately after marriage, additional demand of one Bullet motorcycle and a chain made of gold was made. The niece informed the informant but the informant was not in a position to meet the additional demand. On 29.04.2019 the informant was called and when he went to the house of his niece, he found that her niece was strangulated to death. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased. The mother-in-law

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58553 of 2019(2) dt.20-09-2019 2/2 of the deceased was in advance stage of pregnancy and she had gone to her naihar. She was not even present at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the deceased was suffering from mental anxiety and her condition deteriorated. The case is now compromised, but it appears that the deceased was married with the son of the petitioner on 10.03.2019 and the deceased was killed within one and half months of her marriage inside the house of the petitioner. Besides this fact, it appears that the petitioner also made an attempt to gain over the witness and filed compromise petition.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T