Urmila Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.94 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2024 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Urmila Devi W/O Suresh Ram Resident of Village - Jamunaha, P.S. - Kateya, Dist. - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Adesh Raj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2026

1. Heard the parties.

2. This is second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner who apprehends his arrest in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 88 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024 registered for the offence under Section 304(B) / 34 of the I.P.C.

3. It is a case of dowry death. The petitioner is the mother-inlaw of the deceased.

4. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 31.08.2024 vide Cr. Misc. No. 54350 of 2024 on merit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of general and omnibus alleged. The husband of the deceased was arrested on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.94 of 2026(2) dt.09-01-2026 2/2 15.03.2024 and has been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 24.09.2025 passed in S.T. Case No. 729 / 2024 (Annexure-P/2). Learned counsel further submits that death is suicidal in nature which would be evident from post mortem report in which the cause of death has been shown as asphyxia due to hanging.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner, taking into account the fact that petitioner tried to argue the matter afresh on the ground of acquittal of the husband of the deceased which in my opinion is not a ground for consideration of anticipatory bail application for the second time as well as the fact that this Court at the time of hearing of first anticipatory bail application took all the relevant factors into consideration and thereafter rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail on merit, as such, I am not inclined to entertain the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner on certain grounds placed for the second time. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T