Meena Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22600 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -67 Year- 2014 Thana -UDAKISHANGANJ District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Meena Devi wife of Buddhu Ram Resident of Village- Laskari, P.S. Udakisanganj, District- Madhepura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.N. Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-09-2015 Heard both sides The petitioner seeks bail in a case under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant Sangita Devi alleged that Budhhu Ram, Laxmi Ram and other male and female members of her village sprinkled Kerosene Oil on her and her 10 months old daughter and set them ablaze. The daughter of the informant died immediately thereafter. The informant was under medical treatment. The informant also named the petitioner as one of the persons, who set her and her daughter ablaze. Later on, the informant also succumbed to burn injuries.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. The informant got 90% burn injuries. It is unbelievable that in such a condition she would

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22600 of 2015 (3) dt.17-09-2015 2/2 speak. From Para 54 of the case diary, it would appear that the husband of the informant made his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and disclosed that Budhhu Ram was working with him at Punjab and he returned along with him, but it appears from perusal of the F.I.R. itself that the informant made very specific allegation that Budhhu Ram, Laxmi Ram and other male and female members and the wife of Budhan Ram, the petitioner sprinkled Kerosene Oil and set her and her daughter ablaze and both died. Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 67 of 2014. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T