Sangita Devi @ Sangita Kuwari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64616 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2022 Thana- RISIYAP District- Aurangabad ====================================================== SANGITA DEVI @ SANGITA KUWARI WIFE OF LATE PRAMOD SINGH R/O VILL.- KARMA, P.S.- RISIUP, DISTT.- AURANGABAD (BIHAR) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajiv Nayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Risiup P.S. Case No. 84 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Allegation against the petitioner that she along with other accused persons demanded A.C. and a four wheeler in dowry and on non-fulfillment of the same they killed the daughter of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. She has been falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64616 of 2022(2) dt.24-02-2023 2/2 implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased. He further submits that the husband of the deceased in the judicial since 03.08.2022. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant oppose prayer for bail and submits that there is specific overt act against the petitioner. Hence, she does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, material available on record, the nature of allegations and the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner is surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T