IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24946 of 2009 1. CHIKKU TANTI @ PIKKU TANTI @ PINKU TANTI 2. MURARI TANTI, BOTH SONS OF NAGO TANTI 3. KIRAN DEVI, WIFE OF NAGO TANTI ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GULALPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT MUNGER. ------ PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------ OPPOSITE PARTY with Cr.Misc. No.43815 of 2009 MEENA DEVI, WIFE OF DAMODAR TANTI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GULALPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT MUNGER. ------ PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------ OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 4 17.3.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. After perusing the case diary, it appears that the deceased was always made uncomfortable by her in- laws i.e. the ‘Chachera Chacha and Chachi’ and others and finally it is said that the husband is responsible for the death of the deceased. In the case diary it appears that a U/D case was lodged by the husband. It also appears that the husband who has sprinkled K. Oil from a ‘Dhibri’ and was responsible for setting fire to the deceased. Counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submits that the husband is in custody and he was married for ten years. It is also said that the husband was burnt and he was remained in hospital for one month. However, this fact is not found in the case diary. It is also argued that if at all it would be the husband who would be responsible for the death and not these petitioners. The submissions made above may be good grounds for grant of regular bail. However, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners. These applications are dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, j.)