IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32972 of 2008 SK. SHABBU @ SK. SHAHNAWAZ Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 19.1.2009. Heard both sides. Petitioner is an accused in Shikarpur P.S. Case No.49 of 2008 instituted under sections 498A, 304(B)/34 of I.P.C. The petitioner is the husband of the victim lady. The victim died as a result of 80% burn injury within seven years of the marriage. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that actually, victim died as a result of accidental fire. While she was boiling milk for her son on stove, the stove got brust and caught fire to the victim. In support of his contention, he relied upon Annexure-2, the alleged fardbeyan of the victim recorded in M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah by Shri R.B. Sharma, S.I. However, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Annexure-2 is collusive document. The victim never gave any statement nor she was able to give her statement, who had 80% burn injuries. The annexure-2 would go to show that the statement was not recorded in presence of any doctor nor doctor gave any certificate regarding capacity of the victim to give statement. The statement also does not bear signature of the victim who was teacher in school. The S.P. himself supervised the case and found the same true and also took action against the S.I. for fabricating statement of the victim. In support of his contention, he relied upon paragraph-102 of the case - 2 - N.H./ diary. It is further submitted that the anticipatory bail application of father-in-law and mother-in-law have already been rejected by the Supreme Court. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the case diary. In the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is hereby rejected. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )