IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15271 of 2008 SUVIDA DEVI @ SARITA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 02.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with Alipur P.S. Case No. 38 of 2006, registered under sections 304(B), 201/34 I.P.C. and has prayed for anticipatory bail. According to the informant Sangam Choudhary, his bhagini, Pinki Devi, was brought up in his house after the death of her mother and in the year 2001 her marriage with Arun Rai was solemnized and out of the wedlock a female child was born. It has been alleged that ever since her arrival in the sasural a demand of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry was made by her parents – in – law and others and as the same was not fulfilled Pinki was subjected to torture in various ways and also threatened of being killed and ever since the birth of the female child the demand for dowry and torture increased. On 28.6.2006 Pinki is said to have informed over telephone that due to the demand not being fulfilled her – in – laws are driving her out of the house after assaulting her and also planning to kill her and that her life was in danger. The informant claims to have rushed to the sasural village from Mumbai on 4.7.2006 to find that her dead body had been disposed of surreptitiously without giving any information to the informant. - 2 - It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she had been falsely implicated in this case as would be evident from the facts that the informant had filed a petition in Court to the effect that it was out of provocation that he had filed the case and that Deep Narain Rai, the husband of the deceased, had already been acquitted by the Court of Presiding Officer, F.T.C. No. III, Gaya, vide Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2007 as all the witnesses in the case had turned hostile. It has also been submitted that as a matter of fact Pinki had died a natural death due to illness. Admittedly the petitioner happens to be the mother – in – law of the deceased and as would appear from the order of the Sessions Judge dated 3.3.2008 passed in A.B.P. No. 31 of 2008 several paragraphs of the case diary had supported the prosecution case and even the Dy. Superintendent of Police had found the case to be true against this petitioner. That apart, the acquittal of other co- accused does not confer any right upon her for grant of anticipatory bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to extend the benefits of Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. Accordingly, her prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Sanjay (Abhijit Sinha, J.)