IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11442 of 2009 RANJEET MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc.no. 51566 of 2008 SUNAINA DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ==== 2 18.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Both the applications for anticipatory bail arise out of Bachwara P.S. Case no. 70 of 2005, have been heard together. Both the petitioners have been alleged for poisoning the deceased that is denied by the petitioner – wife of deceased on the ground that she was to her naihar while the incident took place and for petitioner of Cr.Misc.no. 11442 of 2009 is that he has no relation with the deceased’s wife and he was working at Surat but I find no substance in the submission. The F.I.R. is clear enough that the deceased went to his sasural on call of his wife. His dead body was only found and the wife found absent without any occasion. A plea is taken of her remaining at her nanihal, appears not a plausible explanation for her defence rather a link to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. Denial of the relation of petitioner of Cr.Misc. no. 11442 of 2009 also belies from the statement of the witnesses though an attempt is made that for only two or three years he was not coming to his sister’s sasural. This much is the circumstance of his implication - 2 - otherwise the person who was regularly visiting his sister sasural is absenting from there. Thus I find it not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI