IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8240 of 2010 MAMTA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 24.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Witnesses are divided. Petitioner’s villagers are stating about taking of the deceased to Delhi where she died of her ailment but informant and her family members are specific on the point that cruelty was being caused for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ultimately, while on the last time she was taken to in-laws was killed. One thing is common there which is about the differences of the wife and husband and their family members, as according to the petitioner’s villagers she was suffering from leprosy. So, she was left by the husband and he married another lady. According to the deceased’s family members, he married another lady due to non- fulfillment of dowry. In any case after another marriage statement regarding taking the deceased to Delhi appears not believable, while para-11 of the case diary is clear that place of occurrence was the matrimonial house of accused persons. Petitioner is mother-in-law. So, she deserves no bail. 2 Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. Shail ( Mandhata Singh, J.)