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.)