IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.37556 of 2009 LALIKA DEVI W/o Lakshman Sah Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5/ 03.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 498 A, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case has been instituted upon the fardbeyan of the victim, Phool Kumari, herself recorded at F.S. Ward of Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur on 16.02.2006 at 0.45 hours. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the prosecution case that the husband of the informant had died about three years back. It is alleged that father-in-law and mother-in-law tortured her for demand of dowry. Learned counsel further submits that the victim alleges that mother-in-law and father- in-law burnt her, on account of which she sustained burn injury on the chest, back, face and both hands. Learned counsel submits that another case bearing case no. 74 of 2006 was instituted on the statement of the brother of the victim. Learned counsel further submits that in fact no such allegation has been made against the petitioner in the aforesaid case. Learned counsel submits that the own brothers of the informant namely Shiv Mohan Sah and Shankar Sah have been examined vide paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the case diary. He further submits that the informant was mentally disturbed since the death of her husband. He further submits that even on enquiry she did not state - 2 - as to how she got fire. Learned counsel submits that in fact, the victim had become mentally disturbed after death of her husband and she may have caught fire while cooking. He submits that a burnt person is not in a position to make statement after receiving such a severe injury. Learned counsel submits that after one and half months of the occurrence, the victim, Phool Kumari, died. Counsel for the State submits that there is allegation against the petitioner in the First Information Report. However, he is not able to controvert the statement of the brothers’ of the informant, who stated that the victim did not say as to how she received the injury. The grounds taken by the petitioner may be relevant for regular bail, but so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant the same. However, if petitioner surrenders before the court below (Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West, Muzaffarpur in connection with Kanti P.S. case no. 35 of 2006 amalgamated with Kanti P.S. case no. 74 of 2006 arising out of G.R. No. 258 of 2006 and 513 of 2006), the same would be disposed of preferably on the same day without being prejudiced by this order also taking into consideration that petitioner is aged about 70 years. Let this order be sent through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)