IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1679 of 2011 MEENA KUMARI @ MEENA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 20.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner’s prayer has twice been refused by the Sessions Judge and on 11.08.2000 by this Court. Deceased’s son informed to the Police about death of his father due to ailment but that finds no corroboration in report of Doctors, rather his Viscera was kept preserved and in that poisoning is detected. Earlier to the instant case, a case for kidnapping of petitioner’s son was pending controversial on the pint of role of investigating agencies and in later part of the investigation, informant/deceased was also suspected about kidnapping and killing of petitioner’s son in which some forensic report has appeared, its relevancy, I am not going to mention but that is about no poisoning. What is relevant that ailment was not detected. There should be some cause for death. One of the forensic reports which is obtained in this case is about poisoning while that is no poisoning in a case in which investigation has always been remained controversial may never be taken for giving any liberty to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory is rejected. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)