Sakari Devi @ Shakari Devi @ Sankari Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5112 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2016 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Sakari Devi @ Shakari Devi @ Sankari Devi Wife of - Ram Bilakshan Yadav @ Ram Vilakshan Yadav @ Ram Billakchhan Yadav Resident of villageSirhulli, Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prem Ranjan Raj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest in Kamtaul P.S. case No. 91 of 2016 registered under Section 302,304B, 201,34 of the IPC.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer of petitioner for anticipatory bail along with three others was earlier rejected by this court vide order dated 15.11.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36259 of 2016 but other accused persons, namely, Satish Yadav, Ram Bilakshan Yadav and Manit Yadav have been granted regular bail vide orders passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29884 of 2017 and 28583 of 2018. The FIR was lodged after 17 days of the occurrence. The petitioner is motherin-law and she deserves anticipatory bail but from perusal of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5112 of 2019(3) dt.19-06-2019 2/2 records, it appears that besides the informant, the daughter of the informant, who succumbed to the burn injuries, disclosed before her death in presence of the informant that petitioner and others sprinkled kerosene oil and ignited fire in her body. Consequently, she got extensive burn injuries and died during the course of treatment. The prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner was rejected on 15.11.2016 but she avoided her appearance and remained absconding for more than two and half years.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I do not find any fresh ground to reconsider the prayer of petitioner for anticipatory bail and the same is once again rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T