IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37840 of 2010 SAVITA DEVI @ JIGNI DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03. 04.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the state. Petitioner is alleged for killing informant’s husband. Informant is first wife and petitioner is second wife. Submission on her behalf is that deceased took poison due to act of the informant herself. Further submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that four independent witnesses of the village- Anantpura are there to state that deceased got down there from the train. He was not able to move freely, fell down, was taken care of the witnesses examined. He received a call on deceased’s mobile from his brother getting instruction to carry the deceased to hospital, which was complied only after coming of other villagers. Three of them are examined also corroborating the version of witness examined in Paragraph-42, but act of the Investigating Officer appears favouring this petitioner as the caller on deceased’s mobile was his full brother a Sub- inspector of Police (Daroga), but was never contacted nor the number of caller was collected nor the mobile is seized. Disclosure of poisoning rather corroborates the prosecution version about administration of poison. It appears some witnesses have been managed by the Investigating Officer to 2 explain the poisoning, rightly cognizance is taken in the case. Accordingly, petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. Vikash (Mandhata Singh, J.)