Premlata Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6917 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2022 Thana- KHARIK District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Premlata Devi W/o Sanjay Sharma @ Chandan Sharma R/o Chakrami, P.S. - Bhawanipur O. P (Bihpur), Dist. - Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 05-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Kharik P.S. Case No. 98 of 2022, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the accused persons came on two motorcycles and fired upon father of the informant due to which he sustained gunshot injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge has been framed in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6917 of 2024(5) dt.05-07-2024 2/2 possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is the wife of the informant. The petitioner has been made accused due to previous enmity. The petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2023 and has got one criminal antecedent in which the petitioner is on bail.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that the accused persons were giving threat to kill the informant regarding withdrawal of a previous case and co-accused Uchit Sharma helped the petitioner in making conspiracy with coaccused Chandan Sharma.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation and the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. Hence, trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months, failing which, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T