Reeta Devi @ Kusuma Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2907 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-757 Year-2021 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Reeta Devi @ Kusuma Devi Wife Of Deepnarain Paswan @ Ganesh Paswan R/O Village- Chhoti Yusufpur, P.S.- Hajipur Industrial Area, DistrictVaishali 2.
Sanju Kumari @ Sujata Kumari @ Sunita Kumari Wife Of Jeetu Das R/O Mohalla- Dudhnoi Cronic School Nearby P.S.- Gwalpara, District- Dudhnoi (Asam) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ld. APP for the State.
The petitioners seek bail in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case 757 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 366 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case as emerging from the FIR is that the accused-petitioner took the informant from Hajipur to Patna and got her involved in flesh trade with two males and thereafter she was taken to Haryana after intoxication. Even in Haryana, as per the allegation, she was forced to
2/4 enter into flesh trade for payment of Rs. 10,000/- and on refusal she was mal-treated by the accused-petitioner along with other co-accused. Somehow she informed her family members regarding the things going on and once the accused-petitioners came to know about the fact that her family members is now aware of it, they started torturing her further and started demanding extortion money of Rs. 1,00,000/-. When brother the informant told them that he would pay the extortion money once they come to Patna. On such assurance of the brother of the informant, the accusedpetitioners came to Patna and hence both the accusedpetitioners got arrested by the Police at Danapur. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case.
He further submits that both are female and there is no question of sexual abuse by them. He further submits that both are somehow related with alleged victim and they have been languishing in jail since 28.08.2021.
3/4 framed It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the petition that the petitioners have never moved before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail submitting that the alleged offence is serious in nature.
It has further been stated that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
However, the learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the serious nature of offence alleged against the petitioners, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage.
The application stands rejected accordingly.
However, if the trial is not concluded within 9 months, the petitioners have liberty to renew their prayer for bail.
The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects, if any, pointed out by the office within a period of one month and the Registry is directed to
4/4 issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections.
(Jitendra Kumar, J) uttam/- U T