Shobhawati Devi @ Shubhanti Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9237 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -165 Year- 2014 Thana -JAGDIHSPUR District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Shobhawati Devi @ Shubhanti Devi Wife of Jag Narayan Choudhary, Resident of village- Parasiya, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pd. (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 165 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, father of the deceased alleged that the petitioner called his son and thereafter his son was missing. The informant got information that his son was killed by the petitioner and her husband. His son was not willing to marry with the daughter of the petitioner. The villagers went to the house of the petitioner along with informant and the police recovered chappal of the deceased Dhananjay Mishra and blood stain and articles from the roof of the petitioner. The dead body of the deceased was also found outside the village of the petitioner. Prior to the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9237 of 2015 (5) dt.06-05-2015 2/2 occurrence, the daughter of the petitioner had lodged a case under Section 376 having Jagdishpur P.S. Case no. 333 of 2013 against Dhananjay Kumar Mishra in which he was sent to jail but later on the case was compromised and Dhananjay Kumar Mishra was bailed out.

It is submitted that other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.

From perusal of record it appears that the petitioner and her daughter Chinki Kumari called Dhananjay Kumar Mishra on telephone and thereafter Dhananjay Kumar Mishra is traceless. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt of this order. If the trial is not concluded within stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail, firstly in the trial court. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi/- U T