IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39303 of 2009 SUMITRA DEVI Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sheopujan Yadav @ Sheopujan Prasad ------ 3/ 19.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that bail was obtained basing the wrong submission that this petitioner was residing in her matrimonial house, while she is residing at her Maika needs decision at the end of trial. It is not an admitted point corroborated by admitted or admissible documents. Another point is that threatening was given to her is also not believable, as she is claiming residing at her Maika. Considering the same, prayer of the petitioner is rejected. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)